linux-kernel - Re: warning: ‘x86_get_event_constraints’ defined but not used

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1314105839.8002.51.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:23:59 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
Cc:	acme@...stprotocols.net, mingo@...e.hu, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: warning:
 ‘x86_get_event_constraints’ defined but
 not used

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 20:40 -0300, Kevin Winchester wrote:
> Is there are reason why those C
> files are included directly in another C file rather than being linked
> together?  

Sheer suckyness on my part.. we needed a 'quick' fix to make these
CPU_SUP_* things build at all and never got around to cleaning it up
afterwards.

> Or is there some other way the code could be improved and
> also remove the warning at the same time?

creation of a arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h and enough code massage
to make all these .c files compile independently would be appreciated,
not sure that'll immediately solve your issue though.

> I do not mind doing some coding here to make this happen.  I am very
> close to a warning-free build, so I would definitely like to take care
> of this one.

You could slip something like it into the 'cleanup' if nothing else
presents itself :-)
--
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/