[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151014090815.GS17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:08:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:20AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 2015 10:37:07 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Uuh, I just looked at next and saw this regulator_lock_supply()
> > > function. How is that limited? subclass must be <8 otherwise bad things
> > > happen.
> >
> > Also, the function appears unused, just delete it
>
> That was my first suggestion as well when I ran into
>
> drivers/regulator/core.c:139:13: warning: 'regulator_lock_supply' defined but not used
>
> but apparently this is work-in-progress and the plan is to use it
> in 4.4 when the rest of the currently-under-review patches are merged.
And here I thought we had a fairly strong rule that we should not merge
unused code :/
In any case, whomever wrote that function had better first explain why
its not broken.
And I'm not too keen on making mutex_lock_nested() an inline due it
being too easy to generate code with it. I'd much rather work around the
occasional warning than have to deal with silent but unintended code
spills.
--
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