| Message ID | 148905323991.17295.253127309429140682.stgit@Palanthas (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
>>> On 09.03.17 at 10:54, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote: > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c > @@ -2437,8 +2437,6 @@ csched2_runtime(const struct scheduler *ops, int cpu, > return time; > } > > -void __dump_execstate(void *unused); All fine, except the function wasn't static (or else the compiler would have warned about there not being a definition), so perhaps the subject wants to say "undefined function declaration" or some such. Jan
On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 03:09 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 09.03.17 at 10:54, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c > > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c > > @@ -2437,8 +2437,6 @@ csched2_runtime(const struct scheduler *ops, > > int cpu, > > return time; > > } > > > > -void __dump_execstate(void *unused); > > All fine, except the function wasn't static (or else the compiler > would > have warned about there not being a definition), so perhaps the > subject wants to say "undefined function declaration" or some such. > Right, of course it's not... sorry. What I was aiming was to somehow reinforce the fact that it's only present in this file, but that's not really necessary, and 'static' was very wrong a word for that. I'd be fine with a subject line like: "xen: credit: remove undefined declaration of __dump_execstate()" Let me know if you or George prefer that I resend, or to adjust this upon commit. Or just ignore this mail, and if I don't hear anything for a while, I will just resend. :-) Thanks, Dario
>>> On 09.03.17 at 11:36, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 03:09 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > > On 09.03.17 at 10:54, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote: >> > >> > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c >> > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c >> > @@ -2437,8 +2437,6 @@ csched2_runtime(const struct scheduler *ops, >> > int cpu, >> > return time; >> > } >> > >> > -void __dump_execstate(void *unused); >> >> All fine, except the function wasn't static (or else the compiler >> would >> have warned about there not being a definition), so perhaps the >> subject wants to say "undefined function declaration" or some such. >> > Right, of course it's not... sorry. What I was aiming was to somehow > reinforce the fact that it's only present in this file, but that's not > really necessary, and 'static' was very wrong a word for that. > > I'd be fine with a subject line like: > > "xen: credit: remove undefined declaration of __dump_execstate()" Fine with me (with s/credit/credit2/), and I'm fine without resend, but in the end it's George to judge (unless he gives his ack, deferring to me to adjust and apply). Jan
diff --git a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c index af457c1..bb1c657 100644 --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c @@ -2437,8 +2437,6 @@ csched2_runtime(const struct scheduler *ops, int cpu, return time; } -void __dump_execstate(void *unused); - /* * Find a candidate. */
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> --- Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com> --- xen/common/sched_credit2.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)