Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] iommu - Enable debugfs exposure of IOMMU driver internals

[Gary R Hook]

On 05/08/2018 03:42 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 15:07 -0500, Gary R Hook wrote:
> > On 05/08/2018 01:48 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 12:08 -0500, Hook, Gary wrote:
> > > > On 5/7/2018 6:47 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > > All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > > >
> > > > >       In file included from include/linux/intel-iommu.h:32:0,
> > > > >                        from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h:41,
> > > > >                        from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_oa_bxt.c:31:
> > > > >       include/linux/iommu.h: In function 'iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir':
> > > > > > > include/linux/iommu.h:706:8: error: parameter name omitted
> > > > >
> > > > >        struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *) {};
> > > > >               ^~~~~~
> > > > >       In file included from include/linux/intel-iommu.h:32:0,
> > > > >                        from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h:41,
> > > > >                        from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_oa_bxt.c:31:
> > > > > > > include/linux/iommu.h:706:8: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
> > > > >
> > > > >        struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *) {};
> > > > >               ^~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > vim +706 include/linux/iommu.h
> > > > >
> > > > >       700	
> > > > >       701	#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_DEBUGFS
> > > > >       702	void iommu_debugfs_setup(void);
> > > > >       703	struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *);
> > > > >       704	#else
> > > > >       705	static inline void iommu_debugfs_setup(void) {}
> > > > >     > 706	struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *) {};
> > > > >       707	#endif
> > > > >       708	
> > > >
> > > > I have no problems with adding parameter names. But
> > > > scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't seem to check for this, nor require it.
> > > > Should checkpatch be updated?
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure that's not feasible.
> >
> > Ugh. This is a definition, not a declaration. My bad. Which is likely
> > why I decided to apologize up front.
> >
> > > And when the compiler tells you you've stuffed up some
> > > syntactical bit, why should checkpatch duplicate the
> > > output error message too?
> >
> > Well, that's the point: neither the 4.8 nor 5.4 compiler complained
> > about this.
>
> Perhaps because CONFIG_IOMMU_DEBUGFS was set in the .config
> for all the compilation previously performed?

Well, you'd think maybe so, but I forced a recompilation of that one 
file (i915_oa_bxt.c) and no complaint with 5.4. Weird.

Ah, well. Onward to patch version 6.

Thanks again.