Re: [PATCH] crypto: ccp: Remove forward declaration

[Gary R Hook]

On 09/24/2018 02:40 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 07:18:23PM +0000, Gary R Hook wrote:
>> On 09/24/2018 12:26 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>>> Clang emits a warning about this construct:
>>>
>>> drivers/crypto/ccp/sp-platform.c:36:36: warning: tentative array
>>> definition assumed to have one element
>>> static const struct acpi_device_id sp_acpi_match[];
>>>                                      ^
>>> 1 warning generated.
>>>
>>> Just remove the forward declarations and move the initializations up
>>> so that they can be used in sp_get_of_version and sp_get_acpi_version.
>>
>> I'm not going to out and out object to this just yet.
>>
>> I am not a clang expert. Can you please provide a make command that
>> would explain how you precipitated this complaint?
>>
> 
> Hi Gary,
> 
> I can produce the warning with Clang 6.0 using the following set of
> commands:
> 
> make ARCH=arm64 CC=clang CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- allyesconfig
> ./scripts/config -d CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN
> make ARCH=arm64 CC=clang CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- olddefconfig
> make ARCH=arm64 CC=clang CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- drivers/crypto/ccp/sp-platform.o

No, I"m not getting a warning on my system. I get this:

ghook@taos:~/src/cryptodev-2.6/src$ make ARCH=arm64 CC=clang 
CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- CFLAGS=-v
arch/arm64/Makefile:27: ld does not support --fix-cortex-a53-843419; 
kernel may be susceptible to erratum
arch/arm64/Makefile:40: LSE atomics not supported by binutils
arch/arm64/Makefile:48: Detected assembler with broken .inst; 
disassembly will be unreliable
   CALL    scripts/checksyscalls.sh
   VDSOA   arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.o
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S: Assembler messages:
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S:28: Error: no such instruction: 
`vdso_data .req x6'
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S:29: Error: no such instruction: 
`seqcnt .req w7'
arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/gettimeofday.S:30: Error: no such instruction: 
`w_tmp .req w8'
...

The only reason I bring this up is that it would be helpful to be able 
to recreate results. I figure I'm not set up for this.

That said... please see my response to Nick.