On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > This means there is a strstr() prototype that is visible to > > drivers/firmware/efi/efi-stub-helper.c but fails at linkage because you've > > removed the definition. > > Yes, because you suggested removal when you said, in what is > now deleted context text: > > "I don't see why you can't remove strstr() in > arch/x86/boot/string.c entirely. What breaks?" > > The above answers your question. The eboot.c breaks. So > we can't remove strstr. >
Thanks. > > So, again, why would you add a duplicate > > prototype with your patch? > > I'm sure there is an implicit path to <linux/string.h> > which allows eboot.c to see a prototype and hence compile. > Nope, linux/string.h only declares the prototype when #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_STRSTR and the 32-bit x86 declaration in include/asm/string_32.h properly does #define __HAVE_ARCH_STRSTR. There's also no #include ordering issue here since linux/string.h does #include <asm/string.h> first. If you had a real problem here, the build would break. So I'll renew my original objection: I don't think it's acceptable to add unneeded prototypes because sparse doesn't understand this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
