Re: [PATCH 19/26] drivers: isdn: Move prototype declaration toheader file platform.h from diva_didd.c

[Josh Triplett]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:22:58PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Josh Triplett
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:33:46PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: Rashika Kheria
> > > > Move prototype declarations of function to header file
> > > > hardware/eicon/platform.h because they are used by more than one file.
> > > >
> > > > This eliminates the following warnings in hardware/eicon/diddfunc.c:
> > > > drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diddfunc.c:95:12: warning: no previous prototype for diddfunc_init [-
> > > > Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > > drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diddfunc.c:110:13: warning: no previous prototype for diddfunc_finit
> > [-
> > > > Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > ...
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c b/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c
> > > > index fab6ccf..56d32a7 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c
> > > > @@ -39,9 +39,6 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > > >  #define DBG_MINIMUM  (DL_LOG + DL_FTL + DL_ERR)
> > > >  #define DBG_DEFAULT  (DBG_MINIMUM + DL_XLOG + DL_REG)
> > > >
> > > > -extern int diddfunc_init(void);
> > > > -extern void diddfunc_finit(void);
> > > > -
> > > >  extern void DIVA_DIDD_Read(void *, int);
> > >
> > > You should move that one as well.
> > > There really shouldn't be 'extern' definitions for any function in
> > > any C files since you want the compiler to check they are correct
> > > when the function itself is compiled.
> > 
> > Absolutely, but as far as I can tell Rashika is doing this
> > incrementally, organized more by header than by source file, so I'd
> > expect a few externs in a source file to disappear at a time rather than
> > all in one patch.
> 
> Unless any actual bugs are found, I'd have thought a single patch for
> each driver would be enough, maybe even one for the whole lot - depending
> on how they are maintained.
> The 26 patches already posted are a little excessive.

These types of patches often seem to generate a non-trivial amount of
feedback (for instance, due to driver-specific organizational issues),
and breaking them up by groups of warnings has tended to avoid excessive
churn and review difficulty on a larger patch.  Certainly as a reviewer
unfamiliar with isdn, I found this patch series far easier to review
than a larger patch would have been.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/