On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:43:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:36 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:27:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > The first time I compiled it, I forgot the ';' and got a warning there.
> > > But the warning also included "declaring structure softirq_action in
> > > prototype", so I fixed both the ';' and added the struct. I can try
> > > compile without it. But I also know that adding #include <interrupt.h>
> > > in rcupreempt.h caused issues too.
> >
> > If I leave out both the "struct softirq_action" and the
> > rcu_process_callbacks() declaration,, it compiles for me.
> >
> > So I guess the rcu_process_callbacks() should be declared static...
>
> OK, I can update the patch to reflect that. Remember, I didn't learn
> anything from doing this patch, so I have no idea why
> rcu_procell_callbacks was global. I was just keeping to the norm. :-)
Hey, -I- learned something from your doing the patch -- namely that
rcu_process_callbacks() was needlessly non-static. ;-)
> Actually, I'll make a separate patch for this change. This is a
> different issue.
Sounds good!
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
