Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:53:45 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: add prototype for __add_to_page_cache_locked() |
| |
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:40:00 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 07:49:52PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > Otherwise it cause gcc warning: > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > That line is just confusing.
I cleaned up the changelog. It is presently
: Subject: include/linux/mm.h: add prototype for __add_to_page_cache_locked() : : Otherwise it causes a gcc warning: : : ../mm/filemap.c:830:14: warning: no previous prototype for : `__add_to_page_cache_locked' [-Wmissing-prototypes] : : A previous attempt to make this function static led to compilation : errors for a few architectures, because __add_to_page_cache_locked() is : referred to by BPF code. : : Adding a prototype will silence the warning.
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h > > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h > > @@ -216,6 +216,12 @@ int overcommit_kbytes_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void *, size_t *, > > loff_t *); > > int overcommit_policy_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void *, size_t *, > > loff_t *); > > +/* > > + * Any attempt to mark this function as static leads to build failure > > + * for few architectures. Adding a prototype to silence gcc warning. > > + */ > > We don't need a comment here for this. The commit log is enough.
I think it's OK - people do send patches which remove a prototype and also make the function static. A tree-wide grep would catch the bpf reference but I suspect people tend to grep for "foo(" rather then "foo".
> > +int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping, > > + pgoff_t offset, gfp_t gfp, void **shadowp); > > Please name that 'index', not 'offset'.
I too prefer index over offset.
X1:/usr/src/linux-5.10> grep -r "pgoff_t offset" . | wc -l 52 X1:/usr/src/linux-5.10> grep -r "pgoff_t index" . | wc -l 250
But renaming this arg should be a separate patch.
And I don't think we should be preparing large "rename offset to index" patches, please. The value/noise ratio is too low.
| |