On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:51:02PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

Hi Geert,

On 7/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible

drivers/char/keyboard.c: In function 'kbd_keycode':
drivers/char/keyboard.c:1142: error: implicit declaration of function
'mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons'

The forward declaration of mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() is not

visible

quoted

quoted

on
m68k because it's hidden in the middle of a big #ifdef block.

Move it to <linux/hid.h>, correct the type of the second parameter, and
include <linux/hid.h> where needed.

linux/hid.h contains definitions needed for drivers speaking HID
protocol, I don't think we want to put quirks for legacy keyboard
driver there. I'd just move the #ifdef within drivers/char/keyboard.c
for now.
...

If you only move it you will keep the bug of the wrong second parameter.

But if you move it to any header file gcc is able to figure out such
errors itself instead of them being nasty runtime errors.

Such prototypes in C files are really bad since (like in this case) they
prevent the finding of bugs. It doesn't matter which header file you put
the prototype into (it can even be a new one), but it belongs into a
header file.

I am OK with adding a new header file. I was just saying that placing
that declaration in linux/hid.h makes about the same sense as putting
it into linux/scsi.h

scsi.h would also be fine with me.  ;-)

Are you making a patch or should I send one? [1]

If you send one I'll gladly take it ;)

-- 
Dmitry