[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C1D160D.5030303@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:10:05 -0700
From: "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-audit@...hat.com,
zippel@...ux-m68k.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6]kernel:module.c variable 'nowarn' set but not used
On 06/19/2010 01:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:04, Justin P. Mattock
> <justinmattock@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Also wrong, you removed the creation of the links in sysfs.
>>>
>>> The assignment to nowarn was there to avoid another compiler warning,
>>> as sysfs_create_link() is marked __must_check.
>>
>> I also went back to this one and made the following changes.. let me know if
>> it's wrong etc..
>>
>> From 4f45beed80627d2bb32fb021bb6d22d88089557b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@...il.com>
>> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c
>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@...il.com>
>>
>> ---
>> kernel/module.c | 3 +--
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
>> index 8c6b428..48fc5c8 100644
>> --- a/kernel/module.c
>> +++ b/kernel/module.c
>> @@ -1340,11 +1340,10 @@ static void add_usage_links(struct module *mod)
>> {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
>> struct module_use *use;
>> - int nowarn;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>> list_for_each_entry(use,&mod->target_list, target_list) {
>> - nowarn = sysfs_create_link(use->target->holders_dir,
>> + sysfs_create_link(use->target->holders_dir,
>> &mod->mkobj.kobj, mod->name);
>> }
>> mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>> --
>> 1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6
>>
>> if it looks good, then I can resend it out.
>
> Have you compile-tested this?
> As sysfs_create_link() is marked __must_check, that will cause another compiler
> warning, but only if CONFIG_SYSFS=y.
>
> Perhaps you can just mark the nowarn variable __unused?
o.k. this builds cleanly without a warning, but is it the right thing
todo? i.g. rather leave the warning message there and file a bug than
just silence the issue. Anyways here is what I have:
From edbeb2b1ee051218f9e5b93fcb8bbdbf1119a6e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:07:32 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c
Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@...il.com>
---
kernel/module.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
index 8c6b428..765bac5 100644
--- a/kernel/module.c
+++ b/kernel/module.c
@@ -1340,7 +1340,7 @@ static void add_usage_links(struct module *mod)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
struct module_use *use;
- int nowarn;
+ int nowarn __attribute__((unused));
mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
list_for_each_entry(use, &mod->target_list, target_list) {
--
1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists