Hi Mark



On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 12:11:08AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]

33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
|     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--

quoted

quoted

arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]

33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
|     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
|     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
flagging the same thing.  Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?

thanks for your input.


Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings,  and only one is *new*, 
as the mail mentioned that

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<):

0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'

quoted

quoted

arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for '__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]

33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
|     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the rest 3 warnings, indeed they are not introduced by this patch, 
0Day/LKP listed them here because they appeared near the *new* warning(s).
0Day/LKP hope the extra info/warnings could be also helpful for diagnosis.


Thanks





_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel