From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:10143 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731165AbeG0LY4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:24:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] hostap: hide unused procfs helpers To: Kalle Valo , Arend van Spriel References: <20180713070317.6724-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <5B485441.1080305@broadcom.com> <87r2jpvxme.fsf@codeaurora.org> CC: , , , , , Randy Dunlap From: YueHaibing Message-ID: <9c6401cd-c04c-1230-d360-922b476c6541@huawei.com> (sfid-20180727_120627_461912_265686D9) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 18:03:38 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r2jpvxme.fsf@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2018/7/27 17:25, Kalle Valo wrote: > Arend van Spriel writes: > >> + Randy >> >> On 7/13/2018 9:03 AM, YueHaibing wrote: >>> When CONFIG_PROC_FS isn't set, gcc warning this: >>> >>> drivers/net/wireless/intersil/hostap/hostap_hw.c:2901:12: warning: ‘prism2_registers_proc_show’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >>> static int prism2_registers_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >>> >>> drivers/net/wireless/intersil/hostap/hostap_proc.c:16:12: warning: ‘prism2_debug_proc_show’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >>> static int prism2_debug_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >>> ^ >>> drivers/net/wireless/intersil/hostap/hostap_proc.c:49:12: warning: ‘prism2_stats_proc_show’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >>> static int prism2_stats_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >>> ^ >>> drivers/net/wireless/intersil/hostap/hostap_proc.c:177:12: warning: ‘prism2_crypt_proc_show’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >>> static int prism2_crypt_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) >>> ^ >>> >>> fix this by adding #ifdef around them. >>> hfa384x_read_reg is only used by prism2_registers_proc_show,so move it >>> into #ifdef. >> >> There was already a fix for this posted by Randy Dunlap taking a >> different approach, ie. use __maybe_unused classifier. To be honest I >> prefer the ifdef approach as it is more explicit and does not feel >> like a cheat. > > I also prefer the ifdef approach more so I'm planning to take this > patch. It's ok if you prefer pick this. >