[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <531A7EBC.1050205@converseincode.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:21:48 -0800
From: Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC: khali@...ux-fr.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org,
pageexec@...email.hu, Mark Charlebois <charlebm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: LLVMLinux: Remove unused function warning
from __param_check macro
On 03/07/14 18:17, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 18:10 -0800, behanw@...verseincode.com wrote:
>> This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang
>> complains that it generates an unused function.
> []
>> diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
> []
>> @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static inline void destroy_params(const struct kernel_param *params,
>> /* The macros to do compile-time type checking stolen from Jakub
>> Jelinek, who IIRC came up with this idea for the 2.4 module init code. */
>> #define __param_check(name, p, type) \
>> - static inline type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); }
>> + static inline __always_unused type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); }
> Perhaps __maybe_unused ?
I thought about that (and even tested with __maybe_unused), but I
*think* they are always unused, except at compile time (see comment
above). Though I could be wrong.
I'm certainly okay with __maybe_unused if that is preferable.
Behan
--
Behan Webster
behanw@...verseincode.com
--
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