[kbuild-all] [RFC PATCH] ext4: ext4_modify_primary_sb() can be static

fs/ext4/ioctl.c:45:5: warning: symbol 'ext4_modify_primary_sb' was not declared. Should it be static? fs/ext4/ioctl.c:165:5: warning: symbol 'ext4_modify_superblocks_fn' was not declared. Should it be static? Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com&gt; --- ioctl.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c index 285862288ecb5..5f5c0e62e4d3d 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c +++ b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c @@ -42,9 +42,9 @@ static void ext4_sb_setlabel(struct ext4_super_block *es, const void *arg) memcpy(es->s_volume_name, (char *)arg, EXT4_LABEL_MAX); } -int ext4_modify_primary_sb(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle, - ext4_modify_sb_callback func, - const void *arg) +static int ext4_modify_primary_sb(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle, + ext4_modify_sb_callback func, + const void *arg) { int err = 0; struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); @@ -162,9 +162,9 @@ static int ext4_update_backup_sb(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle, * This is safe because e2fsck will re-write them if there is a problem, * and we're very unlikely to ever need more than two backups. */ -int ext4_modify_superblocks_fn(struct super_block *sb, - ext4_modify_sb_callback func, - const void *arg) +static int ext4_modify_superblocks_fn(struct super_block *sb, + ext4_modify_sb_callback func, + const void *arg) { handle_t *handle; ext4_group_t ngroups;