[arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 11:05, Russell King (Oracle)
<linux at armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:39:31AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 00:16, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, at 00:08, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 05:06:03AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > >>    1 error generated.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing this is a conflict between Arnd's patch
> > > >
> > > > ae1f8d793a19 ("ARM: 9304/1: add prototype for function called only from asm")
> > > >
> > > > merged in v6.5-rc1 and Ard's patch, and that part of Arnd's patch
> > > > needs to be reverted since VFP_bounce is now static. Agreed?
> > >
> > > Yes, with Ard's change, the prototype I added is neither required nor correct.
> > >
> > > My series contained another patch that added a prototype for
> > > vfp_entry(), and this is also obsoleted by Ard's series, but you
> > > did not merge it anyway, so it's all good on that one.
> > >
> >
> > When you sent out that series, I mentioned the conflict with
> > vfp_entry() [13/16], but I failed to spot that the same series had
> > another patch that added the VFP_bounce() declaration, which is the
> > one that is now conflicting.
> >
> > So we just need a patch that drops the VFP_bounce() declaration,
> > right? Should I send that out and drop it into the patch system?
>
> http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=a6f307c20d649e5f1da280bee7ed160de74de2ff
>

OK thanks for taking care of that.