From: Hannes Eder Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:13:44 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] mISDN: fix sparse warnings Message-Id: <493feab4.0aaa660a.7938.3213@mx.google.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Karsten Keil Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Impact: make an exported symbol non static Fix this warning: drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:176:1: warning: symbol 'plx_lock' shadows an earlier one drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:175:19: originally declared here Signed-off-by: Hannes Eder --- Note that patch introduces this new warning: drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:175:12: warning: symbol 'plx_lock' was not declared. Should it be static? Should 'plx_lock' be declared in a header file? Or is it really neccessart to export it? drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c b/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c index 599d832..b4595f7 100644 --- a/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c +++ b/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ static int interrupt_registered; static struct hfc_multi *syncmaster; static int plxsd_master; /* if we have a master card (yet) */ -static spinlock_t plx_lock; /* may not acquire other lock inside */ +spinlock_t plx_lock; /* may not acquire other lock inside */ EXPORT_SYMBOL(plx_lock); #define TYP_E1 1 -- 1.5.6.3