[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d98f7107-56d7-44a3-8b77-b8766cdc02d9@kadam.mountain>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:41:49 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
Cc: Su Hui <suhui@...china.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver base: slience unused warning
On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 04:02:01PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023, Su Hui wrote:
>
> > This variable is been used but never be read, so gcc and W=1 give such
> > warning.
> >
> > drivers/base/module.c:36:6: error:
> > variable ‘no_warn’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
> >
> > I wanted to use "__maybe_unused" to avoid this warning.
> >
> > However it seems like a wrong using of "__maybe_unused" as Greg KH said:
> >
> > "But no_warn is being used in this file, it's being set but not read
> > which is ok. That's a real use, so this change really isn't correct,
> > sorry."
>
> The warning itself is a real issue to be sorted though. Is this a use
> case for `#pragma GCC diagnostic'?
I thought Greg liked using __maybe_unused in this case? This is
drivers/base. Do the rest of us even get a vote? ;)
If I do have a vote then #pragma is always the worst option. Linus has
taught me to dislike pragmas a lot.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists