[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DF57067.2040808@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:05:27 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates
09:02, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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?
>
--
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