Re: [PATCH] watchdog: set variables watchdog_soft,hardlockup_user_enabled storage-class-specifier to static

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:05 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 7:12 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 5:23 AM Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > smatch reports
> > > kernel/watchdog.c:40:19: warning: symbol
> > >   'watchdog_hardlockup_user_enabled' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > kernel/watchdog.c:41:19: warning: symbol
> > >   'watchdog_softlockup_user_enabled' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > >
> > > These variabled are only used in their defining file, so it should be static.
> >
> > s/variabled/variables
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/watchdog.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > While your fix is valid (thanks!), it's only half the fix.
> >
> > I wondered why smatch would have suddenly noticed this since the
> > change that touched this variable recently was only a rename. When I
> > dug deeper, I realized that the old names actually _were_ referenced
> > outside this file and my rename missed them. The reason I missed them
> > is that the only reference is an "extern" reference in
> > `include/linux/nmi.h`. The references in `include/linux/nmi.h`
> > probably should have been removed in commit dd0693fdf054 ("watchdog:
> > move watchdog sysctl interface to watchdog.c")
> >
> > ...so a more complete fix would also remove references to the old
> > names (nmi_watchdog_user_enabled and soft_watchdog_user_enabled) in
> > `include/linux/nmi.h`.
>
> FWIW, Petr has the other half of the fix at:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/ZG4TW--j-DdSsUO6@alley
>
> Any chance you could send out a v2 and include that? If I don't see
> something by tomorrow morning I'll try to send out a v2 for you that
> squashes your and his changes.

Maybe it's still morning somewhere. In any case, I squashed and posted:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230525162822.1.I0fb41d138d158c9230573eaa37dc56afa2fb14ee@changeid

Assuming that looks OK it should be considered as superseding $SUBJECT patch.