5:46 p.m.
Hi Mark
On 6/6/20 12:35 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 12:11:08AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> 33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> 33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgettimeofday.c:9:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_clock_gettime' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> 9 | int __kernel_clock_gettime(clockid_t clock,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not seeing this here and what we're doing is in line with the
existing idiom as can be seen from the __kernel_clock_gettime() code
flagging the same thing. Possibly an old/outdated toolchain?
thanks for your
input.
Actually, the origin mail contained 4 warnings, and only one is *new*,
as the mail mentioned that
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by
<<):
0Day/LKP had marked the *new* ones prefixed by '>>'
>> arch/arm64/kernel/vdso/vgetcpu.c:33:5: warning: no previous prototype for
'__kernel_getcpu' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
33 | int __kernel_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the rest 3 warnings, indeed they are not introduced by this patch,
0Day/LKP listed them here because they appeared near the *new* warning(s).
0Day/LKP hope the extra info/warnings could be also helpful for diagnosis.
Thanks