[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029222015.GA17755@jtriplet-mobl1>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:20:15 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: Add a chapter on conditional compilation
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:12:49PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> > Document several common practices and conventions regarding conditional
> > compilation, most notably the preference for ifdefs in headers rather
> > than .c files.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
>
> > +If you have a function or variable which may potentially go unused in a
> > +particular configuration, and the compiler would warn about its definition
> > +going unused, mark the definition as __maybe_unused rather than wrapping it in
> > +a preprocessor conditional. (However, if a function or variable *always* goes
> > +unused, delete it.)
>
> Personally, I don't like __maybe_unused. Once it's there, the compiler
> will stop warning about it, even if it really becomes unused.
True. It's a tradeoff between getting the compiler to warn about unused
code to allow removing it, and putting #ifdefs in .c files. However,
in previous patch discussions, developers seem to come down pretty
consistently on the side of "don't put #ifdefs in .c files".
> Apart from that:
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Thanks!
- Josh Triplett
--
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