[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m262oar1a9.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:02:54 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-btrfs" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The for-linus branch of the btrfs unstable tree:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git for-linus
>
> Has our current queue of fixes. Josef's is the biggest pile, mostly in
> the allocator. Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoid
> mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is just a
> little too easy sometimes (I double checked the resulting code).
The new in 3.0 btrfs warnings on every build are still there:
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: ‘btrfs_root_attrs’ defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: ‘btrfs_super_attrs’ defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: ‘btrfs_super_release’ defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: ‘btrfs_root_release’ defined but not used
These are not even used inside any ifdef. It's unclear to me: were
these supposed to be used or removed?
Probably better to remove since they seem to be untested, unless
it was a merge error?
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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