[RFC PATCH] ext4: ext4_modify_primary_sb() can be static

[kernel test robot]

fs/ext4/ioctl.c:45:5: warning: symbol 'ext4_modify_primary_sb' was not declared. Should it be static?
fs/ext4/ioctl.c:165:5: warning: symbol 'ext4_modify_superblocks_fn' was not declared. Should it be static?

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
---
 ioctl.c |   12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
index 285862288ecb5..5f5c0e62e4d3d 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ioctl.c
@@ -42,9 +42,9 @@ static void ext4_sb_setlabel(struct ext4_super_block *es, const void *arg)
 	memcpy(es->s_volume_name, (char *)arg, EXT4_LABEL_MAX);
 }
 
-int ext4_modify_primary_sb(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle,
-			   ext4_modify_sb_callback func,
-			   const void *arg)
+static int ext4_modify_primary_sb(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle,
+				  ext4_modify_sb_callback func,
+				  const void *arg)
 {
 	int err = 0;
 	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
@@ -162,9 +162,9 @@ static int ext4_update_backup_sb(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle,
  * This is safe because e2fsck will re-write them if there is a problem,
  * and we're very unlikely to ever need more than two backups.
  */
-int ext4_modify_superblocks_fn(struct super_block *sb,
-			       ext4_modify_sb_callback func,
-			       const void *arg)
+static int ext4_modify_superblocks_fn(struct super_block *sb,
+				      ext4_modify_sb_callback func,
+				      const void *arg)
 {
 	handle_t *handle;
 	ext4_group_t ngroups;