On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 03:48:37PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 May 2016 23:27:35 Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV_BATMAN_V
> > +struct batadv_gw_node *batadv_gw_node_get(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv,
> > + struct batadv_orig_node
> > *orig_node);
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV_BATMAN_V */
>
> This is rather odd because the function is also compiled (and used) even when
> CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV_BATMAN_V is not enabled.
>
> Here is the relevant diff:
>
> > @@ -356,9 +360,8 @@ static void batadv_gw_node_add(struct batadv_priv
> > *bat_priv,
> > *
> > * Return: gateway node if found or NULL otherwise.
> > */
> > -static struct batadv_gw_node *
> > -batadv_gw_node_get(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv,
> > - struct batadv_orig_node *orig_node)
> > +struct batadv_gw_node *batadv_gw_node_get(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv,
> > + struct batadv_orig_node
> > *orig_node)
> > {
> > struct batadv_gw_node *gw_node_tmp, *gw_node = NULL;
> >
>
> Maybe you should drop the CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV_BATMAN_V check.
>
> But I should at least whitelist the batadv_gw_node_get for the unused symbols
> check.This is exactly the point: when CONFIG_BATMAN_ADV_BATMAN_V is not selected this exported symbol is not used. Therefore I was not confident if the right way to go was to put the declaration within the #ifdef block or not.. Do you think it makes more sense to keep the declaration and whitelist the function in your test ? Cheers, -- Antonio Quartulli
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
