From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757407Ab2D0A5R (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:57:17 -0400 Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:58418 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753290Ab2D0A5Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:57:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:57:13 +0900 From: Simon Horman To: Julian Anastasov Cc: H Hartley Sweeten , Linux Kernel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPVS: ip_vs_sync.c: local functions should not be exposed globally Message-ID: <20120427005713.GC5105@verge.net.au> References: <201204261129.53927.hartleys@visionengravers.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organisation: Horms Solutions Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:11:54PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, H Hartley Sweeten wrote: > > > Functions not referenced outside of a source file should be marked > > static to prevent it from being exposed globally. > > > > This quiets the sparse warnings: > > > > warning: symbol 'ip_vs_sync_conn_v0' was not declared. Should it be static? > > > > Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten > > Cc: "David S. Miller" > > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c > > index bf5e538..49a1fe8 100644 > > --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c > > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c > > @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ ip_vs_sync_buff_create_v0(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs) > > * Version 0 , could be switched in by sys_ctl. > > * Add an ip_vs_conn information into the current sync_buff. > > */ > > -void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp) > > +static void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp) > > The 3 patches for IPVS look correct but this change > is already not needed after one of our planned changes: > > "ipvs: reduce sync rate with time thresholds" > > Not sure how we will avoid the collision, may be > Simon will take only the other 2 changes? Or David will > take all changes and we have to rebase? I think the best way forwards is for me to take only the first two changes. I don't think that this fix is 3.4 material and as you say we expect this problem to be resolved by other means in 3.5. I am of course open to discussion on this.