[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240503160821.GB3960118@thelio-3990X>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 09:08:21 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, morbo@...gle.com,
justinstitt@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Fix build failure with W=1 and LLVM=1
On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 09:01:06PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 01:20:32PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 05:50:27PM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote:
> > > > When compiling library code using "make W=1 LLVM=1 lib/", clang
> > > > generated the following compilation errors:
> > > >
> > > > lib/maple_tree.c:351:21: error: unused function 'mte_set_full' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
> > > > static inline void *mte_set_full(const struct maple_enode *node)
> > >
> > > Uh, clang is wrong to flag these as an error. They're just not used
> > > yet.
> >
> > I think it's because the kernel defaults to treating all compilation
> > warnings as errors. If you turn off the option to treat compilation
> > warnings as errors, they will be treated as warnings instead. Should I
> > update my commit message to change compilation errors to compilation
> > warnings?
>
> just don't use W=1 and clang.
This patch has effectively been sent four times now:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220914101829.82000-1-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230217084647.50471-1-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230319132903.1702426-1-trix@redhat.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240503095027.747838-1-visitorckw@gmail.com/ (this change obviously)
Your first comment from the 2022 patch:
They're not used now, but they will be in a release or two.
I think a few releases have passed since then :) I don't personally care
if there is a solution here or not, as I don't test with W=1 (there's
enough to do at W=0 :P), but maybe it is time for either __maybe_unused
(as that strikes at the heart of the issue) or at the very least a
comment saying "hey, these functions are currently unused but there are
plans for them to be used, so don't remove them", rather than just
saying the status quo?
Cheers,
Nathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists