linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Fix build failure with W=1 and LLVM=1

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

Message-Id: <20240504160257.02e20addebc407cb4a18da48@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 16:02:57 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Kuan-Wei Chiu
 <visitorckw@...il.com>, 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, 3 May 2024 09:08:21 -0700 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:

> 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?

We could just slap a #if 0 around them.  But I don't think it'll kill us to
have to type them in again one day ;)