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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:32:02 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/topology: Make compiler happy about unused constant definitions On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:26:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:24:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > On 25/08/20 10:03, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > > On 25/08/20 09:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > >>> On 24/08/20 16:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >>> > Compilation of almost each file ends up with > > > >>> > > > > >>> > In file included from .../include/linux/energy_model.h:10, > > > >>> > from .../include/linux/device.h:16, > > > >>> > from .../drivers/spi/spi.c:8: > > > >>> > .../include/linux/sched/topology.h:30:27: warning: ‘SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK’ defined but not used [-Wunused-const-variable=] > > > >>> > 30 | static const unsigned int SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK = > > > >>> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >>> > ... > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Make compiler happy by annotating the static constants with __maybwe_unused. > > > > > > > Sorry, that's what I get for trying to be too succinct; what I tried to say > > > > was that SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK should very much be used for SMP. If the > > > > build is !SMP, it shouldn't even be defined, IOW I'm perplexed as to where > > > > this is coming from. > > > > > > So I see how having this as a constvar rather than a constexpr is somewhat > > > daft (we get an instance per compilation unit), but none of my compilers > > > seem to complain (even with W=1). AFAIA the kernelbot didn't catch any of > > > it either. And even without compiler or any other analyzer / bot I can 100% sure tell that spi.c does *not* use that symbol. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists