powerpc/64s: Include cpu header
authorBreno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:54:12 +0000 (11:54 -0300)
committerGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Thu, 16 May 2019 17:41:28 +0000 (19:41 +0200)
commit0dc9ad4e904d98a1adfe4cf6f181f1c828f1e156
treeec7e37c09820e13fc9565a1b618657017e195c29
parentdb1b4aa651df06e90efc2424d3a83bcf02fe93a5
powerpc/64s: Include cpu header

commit 42e2acde1237878462b028f5a27d9cc5bea7502c upstream.

Current powerpc security.c file is defining functions, as
cpu_show_meltdown(), cpu_show_spectre_v{1,2} and others, that are being
declared at linux/cpu.h header without including the header file that
contains these declarations.

This is being reported by sparse, which thinks that these functions are
static, due to the lack of declaration:

arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c:105:9: warning: symbol 'cpu_show_meltdown' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c:139:9: warning: symbol 'cpu_show_spectre_v1' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c:161:9: warning: symbol 'cpu_show_spectre_v2' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c:209:6: warning: symbol 'stf_barrier' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c:289:9: warning: symbol 'cpu_show_spec_store_bypass' was not declared. Should it be static?

This patch simply includes the proper header (linux/cpu.h) to match
function definition and declaration.

Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Cc: Major Hayden <major@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c