linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] arm64/spinlock: fix a -Wunused-function warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:36:37 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] arm64/spinlock: fix a -Wunused-function warning

On 1/23/20 12:31 PM, Qian Cai wrote:
>
>> On Jan 23, 2020, at 11:56 AM, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Damn, the whole point of this was to warn in the case that
>> vcpu_is_preempted() does get defined for arm64. Can we force it to evaluate
>> the macro argument instead (e.g. ({ (cpu), false; }) or something)?
> Actually, static inline should be better.
>
> #define vcpu_is_preempted vcpu_is_preempted
> static inline bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
> {
> 	return false;
> }
>
Yes, that may work.

Cheers,
Longman