[tip:timers/core 5/5] kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c:441:6: sparse: symbol 'tick_shutdown_broadcast' was not declared. Should it be static?

[tip:timers/core 5/5] kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c:441:6: sparse: symbol 'tick_shutdown_broadcast' was not declared. Should it be static?

[kbuild test robot]

tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git timers/core
head:   973f88ca8b159592685b6ccedb0b91db376bf20d
commit: 973f88ca8b159592685b6ccedb0b91db376bf20d [5/5] tick: Remove outgoing CPU from broadcast masks
reproduce:
        # apt-get install sparse
        git checkout 973f88ca8b159592685b6ccedb0b91db376bf20d
        make ARCH=x86_64 allmodconfig
        make C=1 CF='-fdiagnostic-prefix -D__CHECK_ENDIAN__'


sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)

>> kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c:441:6: sparse: symbol 'tick_shutdown_broadcast' was not declared. Should it be static?

Please review and possibly fold the followup patch.

---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure                Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all                   Intel Corporation

[RFC PATCH tip] tick: tick_shutdown_broadcast() can be static

[kbuild test robot]

Fixes: 973f88ca8b15 ("tick: Remove outgoing CPU from broadcast masks")
Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
---
 tick-broadcast.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
index a470519..7141762 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ void tick_set_periodic_handler(struct clock_event_device *dev, int broadcast)
 /*
  * Remove a CPU from broadcasting
  */
-void tick_shutdown_broadcast(unsigned int cpu)
+static void tick_shutdown_broadcast(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	struct clock_event_device *bc;
 	unsigned long flags;

Re: [RFC PATCH tip] tick: tick_shutdown_broadcast() can be static

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, kbuild test robot wrote:

> Fixes: 973f88ca8b15 ("tick: Remove outgoing CPU from broadcast masks")

No, it does not fix it. The result is that you have a static function which
is not called from anywhere. I'll amend the commit with the proper fix.

Thanks for reporting.

       tglx