[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAELBVzBO7VcXG=A=hey3-GsbCPvUZtBfPSFdjidzTqEmMg__iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:31:50 -0300
From: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
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 23 August 2011 10:23, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> 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 :-)
>
Sure, I'll give the above suggestion a try and see if I can ensure
that the function is not compiled unless it is needed.
Kevin
--
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