From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755162AbbA2SVI (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:21:08 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:51905 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751615AbbA2SVF (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 13:21:05 -0500 Message-ID: <54CA7A0D.8000104@converseincode.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:21:01 -0800 From: Behan Webster User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann , David Miller CC: sathya.perla@emulex.com, ajit.khaparde@emulex.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, subbu.seetharaman@emulex.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net, ethernet, LLVMLinux: Add missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() References: <1422495374-22835-1-git-send-email-behanw@converseincode.com> <20150128.224228.1533046356464752424.davem@davemloft.net> <3392784.h8cmHX9fyr@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <3392784.h8cmHX9fyr@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/29/15 01:10, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2015 22:42:28 David Miller wrote: >> From: Behan Webster >> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 17:36:14 -0800 >> >>> Missing MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE for pci ids from benet driver found by clang. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Behan Webster >>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann >> Why are you removing the device table? > Behan took a patch that I did earlier and split it up to add descriptions. > The patch is correct, but he either misunderstood or misexpressed the > intention. I was tired and rushed this submission in my preparation for FOSDEM. Apologies to all. I neglected to write the commit log when I first split the patch, and didn't look hard enough this time. > This driver has two identical lines that both say > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, be_dev_ids); This is indeed the case. > I don't remember the exact symptom, but llvm/clang trips over this, while gcc > silently ignores the second one. It claims that it is defined more than once. Behan -- Behan Webster behanw@converseincode.com