[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1946137.McqY686LOu@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:15:57 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dax: try to avoid unused function warnings
On Monday, November 28, 2016 2:24:00 PM CET Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Without the get_block based I/O, we get warnings when CONFIG_FS_IOMAP
> > is disabled:
> >
> > fs/dax.c:736:12: error: ‘dax_insert_mapping’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> > fs/dax.c:512:12: error: ‘copy_user_dax’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> > fs/dax.c:490:12: error: ‘dax_load_hole’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> > fs/dax.c:294:14: error: ‘grab_mapping_entry’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
> >
> > This patch blindly marks those as __maybe_unused, which avoids the warnings.
> > However, I suspect that there is actually more code in this file that should
> > not be provided without CONFIG_FS_IOMAP even though we don't get a warning
> > for it, and that we actually want a different rework, so please treat this
> > as a bug report. I have applied the patch locally in my randconfig build
> > setup to avoid seeing the warnings.
> >
> > Fixes: 5ac65736f740 ("dax: rip out get_block based IO support")
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> Thanks for the report. I think the right way to deal with this is to just
> select FS_IOMAP when we pull in the DAX code. I sent out a patch last week
> that does this:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/23/591
It seems we never got agreement on the approach, and we still get the
warnings above in v4.10. Should we use my patch to fix up 4.10 and get
a clean build again? It no longer applies, but I have a rebased version
that I can send.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists