linux-kernel - Re: nolibc and __attribute__((__unused_

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:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 13:53:33 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__))

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:39:16PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Paul!
> 
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:33:49PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > My guess is that I should ignore the following checkpatch complaint on
> > the assumption that checkpatch doesn't realize that this is not built
> > as part of the Linux kernel.  But if my guess is incorrect, please let
> > me know, as it is a trivial change to make.
> (...)
> > WARNING: __always_unused or __maybe_unused is preferred over __attribute__((__unused__))
> > #24: FILE: tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h:2246:
> > +static __attribute__((unused))
> 
> Yes you're totally right, we try to keep both trees in sync by minimizing
> the differences between the two, so as long as that doesn't become a
> problem I prefer to keep the warning than having to manually apply
> future patches due to context differences.

Very well, and I will continue to ignore this sort of warning from
checkpatch for nolibc files.

							Thanx, Paul