[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLE3dDd01WaAp5UAHRb0AiXn_s43M=Gg4TgXzRji_HffEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:01:40 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah.khan@...com>, cl@...ux.com,
glommer@...allels.com, js1304@...il.com, shuahkhan@...il.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH TRIVIAL] mm: Fix build warning in kmem_cache_create()
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Shuah Khan wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>> index 12637ce..aa3ca5b 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -98,7 +98,9 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmem_cache_create(const char *name, size_t size, size_t align
>>
>> s = __kmem_cache_create(name, size, align, flags, ctor);
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
>> oops:
>> +#endif
>> mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
>> put_online_cpus();
>>
>
> Tip: gcc allows label attributes so you could actually do
>
> oops: __maybe_unused
>
> to silence the warning and do the same for the "out" label later in the
> function.
I'm not exactly loving that either.
It'd probably be better to reshuffle the code so that the debug checks
end up in separate functions that are no-op for !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM. That
way the _labels_ are used unconditionally although there's no actual
code generated.
Pekka
--
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