Re: [rfc] the kernel workflow & trivial "global -> static" patches (was: Re: [2.6 patch] make sched_feat_{names,open} static)

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:46:25PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 14:26:04 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Actually, we could perhaps do a lot of this at the checkpatch level?
> > If checkpatch sees a global symbol being added and the same patch
> > does not add references to that symbol from a different file then
> > whine.  Obviously this will generate false positives but that's OK.
> 
> or.. doesn't add it to a header file. That might be even more generic;
> (and enforces a "all global functions need a prototype in a header
> somewhere)

That does sound possible.  I am sure it will false positive quite a lot,
but its probabally worth a stab.

-apw
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/