[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3HVF-mwBucSnxRcdc1oLyZbTqpmmi+WVtssdxuN2dh7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:57:56 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav.linux@...il.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [greybus-dev] [PATCH] staging: greybus: mark PM functions as __maybe_unused
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 18-05-17, 16:51, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> I find that a lot of users get the #ifdef wrong, either using the wrong
>> macro (CONFIG_PM vs CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) or not using the right
>> set of functions (e.g. calling a function only from the suspend handler).
>>
>> The __maybe_unused annotation avoids both problems and also gives
>> better build time coverage, so that's what I tend to use.
>
> Thanks for the explanation Arnd. I hope these unused routines will not
> be part of the binary that gets generated. Right?
Correct. Ancient compilers (gcc-4.1) had a bug where a function would
still be part of the binary if the only reference to it was from a function
pointer that got dropped through dead code elimination, but that is not
the case here, and those old compilers are not used in real life any more
either.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists