From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] xen/misc: Remove or annotate
 possibly-unused functions
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 06:06:51 -0700
Message-ID: <56BB43FB02000078000D08DB@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
References: <1455048108-5045-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1455048108-5045-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1455048108-5045-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>>> On 09.02.16 at 21:01, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/rcupdate.c
> +++ b/xen/common/rcupdate.c
> @@ -141,12 +141,6 @@ static inline int rcu_batch_before(long a, long b)
>      return (a - b) < 0;
>  }
>  
> -/* Is batch a after batch b ? */
> -static inline int rcu_batch_after(long a, long b)
> -{
> -    return (a - b) > 0;
> -}

To me it is the nature of inline functions that they may or may not be
used, regardless of whether they live in a header file (where I would
have supposed Clang won't warn about, but the change below makes
me assume I'm wrong) or in a source file.

> --- a/xen/include/xen/compat.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/compat.h
> @@ -134,14 +134,16 @@
>  #define CHECK_NAME_(k, n, tag) __check ## tag ## k ## _ ## n
>  
>  #define CHECK_TYPE(name) \
> -static inline int CHECK_NAME(name, T)(xen_ ## name ## _t *x, \
> -                                      compat_ ## name ## _t *c) \
> +static inline int __maybe_unused \
> +CHECK_NAME(name, T)(xen_ ## name ## _t *x, \
> +                    compat_ ## name ## _t *c) \
>  { \
>      return x == c; \
>  }
>  #define CHECK_TYPE_(k, n) \
> -static inline int CHECK_NAME_(k, n, T)(k xen_ ## n *x, \
> -                                       k compat_ ## n *c) \
> +static inline int __maybe_unused \
> +CHECK_NAME_(k, n, T)(k xen_ ## n *x, \
> +                     k compat_ ## n *c) \
>  { \
>      return x == c; \
>  }
> @@ -154,14 +156,14 @@ static inline int CHECK_NAME_(k, n, T)(k xen_ ## n *x, \
>                                            sizeof(k compat_ ## n)) * 2]
>  
>  #define CHECK_FIELD_COMMON(name, t, f) \
> -static inline int name(xen_ ## t ## _t *x, compat_ ## t ## _t *c) \
> +static inline int __maybe_unused name(xen_ ## t ## _t *x, compat_ ## t ## _t *c) \
>  { \
>      BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(xen_ ## t ## _t, f) != \
>                   offsetof(compat_ ## t ## _t, f)); \
>      return &x->f == &c->f; \
>  }
>  #define CHECK_FIELD_COMMON_(k, name, n, f) \
> -static inline int name(k xen_ ## n *x, k compat_ ## n *c) \
> +static inline int __maybe_unused name(k xen_ ## n *x, k compat_ ## n *c) \
>  { \
>      BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(k xen_ ## n, f) != \
>                   offsetof(k compat_ ## n, f)); \

So if these are all noticed to be unused, why would others in other
header files not be? I think there's at the very least some aspect
missing in the description, explaining what makes these stand out
from the others.

Jan