[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1432110592.21715.50.camel@x220>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:29:52 +0200
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>
Cc: James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, kishon@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, santoshsy@...il.com,
linux-scsi-owner@...r.kernel.org, subhashj@...eaurora.org,
gbroner@...eaurora.org, dovl@...eaurora.org,
Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...n.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] scsi: ufs-qcom: fix compilation warning if
compiled as a module
On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:47 +0300, Yaniv Gardi wrote:
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c
> @@ -885,7 +885,7 @@ out:
>
> #define ANDROID_BOOT_DEV_MAX 30
> static char android_boot_dev[ANDROID_BOOT_DEV_MAX];
> -static int get_android_boot_dev(char *str)
> +static int __maybe_unused get_android_boot_dev(char *str)
> {
> strlcpy(android_boot_dev, str, ANDROID_BOOT_DEV_MAX);
> return 1;
Wouldn't it be clearer to wrap these few lines (until after the
__setup() macro) with #ifndef MODULE?
And I think get_android_boot_dev() could be marked __init. Because if
it's built-in it will never be called after the kernel has finished
booting, right?
Paul Bolle
--
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