From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83936C38A2A for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6218C207FF for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729283AbgEKBbG (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 May 2020 21:31:06 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:49916 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729217AbgEKBbG (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 May 2020 21:31:06 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8E1C236E49384F496D23; Mon, 11 May 2020 09:31:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.166.215.93) by DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 11 May 2020 09:30:37 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] riscv: perf_event: Make some funciton static To: Palmer Dabbelt CC: Paul Walmsley , , , References: From: Kefeng Wang Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 09:30:36 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.166.215.93] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020/5/9 1:13, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > What's the "-next" for?  This seems appropriate for an RC to me, as > it's a > build fix. Thanks for your review, this patch and "[PATCH -next] riscv: perf: RISCV_BASE_PMU should be closeable", I fix the issue based on linux-next, so add the next prefix ; ) and we also found some another build issue when add RISCV arch to huawei build robot, will send out the patches later. > > On Thu, 07 May 2020 08:04:44 PDT (-0700), wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com > wrote: >> Fixes the following warning detected when running make with W=1, >> ../arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c:150:5: warning: no previous >> prototype for ‘riscv_map_cache_decode’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] >>  int riscv_map_cache_decode(u64 config, unsigned int *type, >>      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ../arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c:345:13: warning: no previous >> prototype for ‘riscv_base_pmu_handle_irq’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] >>  irqreturn_t riscv_base_pmu_handle_irq(int irq_num, void *dev) >>              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ../arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c:364:6: warning: no previous >> prototype for ‘release_pmc_hardware’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] >>  void release_pmc_hardware(void) >>       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ../arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c:467:12: warning: no previous >> prototype for ‘init_hw_perf_events’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] >>  int __init init_hw_perf_events(void) >>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Cc: Alan Kao >> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang >> --- >>  arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c | 8 ++++---- >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c >> b/arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c >> index 91626d9ae5f2..c835f0362d94 100644 >> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c >> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/perf_event.c >> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static int riscv_map_hw_event(u64 config) >>      return riscv_pmu->hw_events[config]; >>  } >> >> -int riscv_map_cache_decode(u64 config, unsigned int *type, >> +static int riscv_map_cache_decode(u64 config, unsigned int *type, >>                 unsigned int *op, unsigned int *result) >>  { >>      return -ENOENT; >> @@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ static void riscv_pmu_del(struct perf_event >> *event, int flags) >> >>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(pmc_reserve_mutex); >> >> -irqreturn_t riscv_base_pmu_handle_irq(int irq_num, void *dev) >> +static irqreturn_t riscv_base_pmu_handle_irq(int irq_num, void *dev) >>  { >>      return IRQ_NONE; >>  } >> @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ static int reserve_pmc_hardware(void) >>      return err; >>  } >> >> -void release_pmc_hardware(void) >> +static void release_pmc_hardware(void) >>  { >>      mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex); >>      if (riscv_pmu->irq >= 0) >> @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id >> riscv_pmu_of_ids[] = { >>      { /* sentinel value */ } >>  }; >> >> -int __init init_hw_perf_events(void) >> +static int __init init_hw_perf_events(void) >>  { >>      struct device_node *node = of_find_node_by_type(NULL, "pmu"); >>      const struct of_device_id *of_id; > > Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt > > . >