* [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. @ 2010-10-31 11:48 Rakib Mullick 2010-11-09 22:44 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rakib Mullick @ 2010-10-31 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton Make sysfs_pathname inline, we we're hit by the following warning: fs/sysfs/dir.c:410: warning: ‘sysfs_pathname’ defined but not used Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail> --- --- linus-36/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2010-10-21 02:30:22.000000000 +0600 +++ rakib-36/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2010-10-31 17:34:46.000000000 +0600 @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ int __sysfs_add_one(struct sysfs_addrm_c * * XXX: does no error checking on @path size */ -static char *sysfs_pathname(struct sysfs_dirent *sd, char *path) +static inline char *sysfs_pathname(struct sysfs_dirent *sd, char *path) { if (sd->s_parent) { sysfs_pathname(sd->s_parent, path); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-10-31 11:48 [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-09 22:44 ` Greg KH 2010-11-10 4:53 ` Rakib Mullick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-09 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rakib Mullick; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 05:48:36PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > Make sysfs_pathname inline, we we're hit by the following warning: > > > fs/sysfs/dir.c:410: warning: ‘sysfs_pathname’ defined but not used > > > Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail> > --- > > --- linus-36/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2010-10-21 02:30:22.000000000 +0600 > +++ rakib-36/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2010-10-31 17:34:46.000000000 +0600 > @@ -407,7 +407,7 @@ int __sysfs_add_one(struct sysfs_addrm_c > * > * XXX: does no error checking on @path size > */ > -static char *sysfs_pathname(struct sysfs_dirent *sd, char *path) > +static inline char *sysfs_pathname(struct sysfs_dirent *sd, char *path) If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any? Shouldn't we just delete the function instead? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-09 22:44 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-10 4:53 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-10 18:39 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-10 4:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any? > Shouldn't we just delete the function instead? > As far as I can see, its been called recursively and also from sysfs_add_one. Am I missing anything? thanks rakib ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-10 4:53 ` Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-10 18:39 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 6:11 ` Rakib Mullick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-10 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rakib Mullick; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:53:37AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > > > If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any? > > Shouldn't we just delete the function instead? > > > As far as I can see, its been called recursively and also from > sysfs_add_one. Am I missing anything? If so, then what is the compiler warning that is being generated that you are trying to resolve? totally confused, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-10 18:39 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-11 6:11 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-11 12:19 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-11 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:53:37AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: >> > >> > If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any? >> > Shouldn't we just delete the function instead? >> > >> As far as I can see, its been called recursively and also from >> sysfs_add_one. Am I missing anything? > > If so, then what is the compiler warning that is being generated that > you are trying to resolve? > Yes - its really confusing. Actually, sysfs_pathname is called from WARN(). So - when #ifndef WARN is false, then we're having that problem and sysfs_pathname isn't used that time. So, the proposed patch isn't the correct fix. Maybe, splitting up the WARN message and calling sysfs_pathname is the correct one. Am I right? > totally confused, > > greg k-h > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-11 6:11 ` Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-11 12:19 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 16:36 ` Rakib Mullick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-11 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rakib Mullick; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:11:34PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:53:37AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any? > >> > Shouldn't we just delete the function instead? > >> > > >> As far as I can see, its been called recursively and also from > >> sysfs_add_one. Am I missing anything? > > > > If so, then what is the compiler warning that is being generated that > > you are trying to resolve? > > > > Yes - its really confusing. Actually, sysfs_pathname is called from > WARN(). So - when #ifndef WARN is false, then we're having that > problem and sysfs_pathname isn't used that time. So, the proposed > patch isn't the correct fix. Maybe, splitting up the WARN message and > calling sysfs_pathname is the correct one. Am I right? perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with WARN not enabled, is this a real issue? thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-11 12:19 ` Greg KH @ 2010-11-11 16:36 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-13 13:35 ` Rakib Mullick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-11 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On 11/11/10, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with > WARN not enabled, is this a real issue? I'm trying to find out the config, which causes the warning (it gets overwritten). Not all config produces the warning. Maybe - it was a randconfig, which generates the warning. I'll again try some randconfig and will try to find the config which generates the warning. If I find something I'll notice. But, I think the issue is real. thanks, rakib > > thanks, > > greg k-h > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-11 16:36 ` Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-13 13:35 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-13 14:45 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-13 13:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg KH; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On 11/11/10, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/11/10, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: >> >> perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with >> WARN not enabled, is this a real issue? > > I'm trying to find out the config, which causes the warning (it gets > overwritten). Not all config produces the warning. Maybe - it was a > randconfig, which generates the warning. I'll again try some > randconfig and will try to find the config which generates the > warning. If I find something I'll notice. But, I think the issue is > real. > CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y and CONFIG_BUG=n produces that warning, in that case #ifndef WARN is defined as follows: #define WARN(condition, format...) ({ \ int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \ unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \ }) from above we can see, format isn't used. sysfs_pathname is passed as format when called from sysfs_add_one through WARN(). Since format isn't used, that's why we're having that problem. Am I right? Should I create a patch to split up WARN() and calling sysfs_pathname ? Or is there any better way? thanks, rakib ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype. 2010-11-13 13:35 ` Rakib Mullick @ 2010-11-13 14:45 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2010-11-13 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rakib Mullick; +Cc: LKML, Andrew Morton On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 07:35:10PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > On 11/11/10, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/11/10, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > >> > >> perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with > >> WARN not enabled, is this a real issue? > > > > I'm trying to find out the config, which causes the warning (it gets > > overwritten). Not all config produces the warning. Maybe - it was a > > randconfig, which generates the warning. I'll again try some > > randconfig and will try to find the config which generates the > > warning. If I find something I'll notice. But, I think the issue is > > real. > > > CONFIG_EMBEDDED=y and CONFIG_BUG=n produces that warning, in that case > #ifndef WARN is defined as follows: > > #define WARN(condition, format...) ({ \ > int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \ > unlikely(__ret_warn_on); \ > }) > > from above we can see, format isn't used. sysfs_pathname is passed as > format when called from sysfs_add_one through WARN(). Since format > isn't used, that's why we're having that problem. Am I right? Should I > create a patch to split up WARN() and calling sysfs_pathname ? Or is > there any better way? No, you should probably just not worry about it as the number of people using those two configuration options are in the extreme minority so it's really not a big issue at all. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-11-13 14:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-10-31 11:48 [PATCH] fs, sysfs: Change sysfs_pathname function prototype Rakib Mullick 2010-11-09 22:44 ` Greg KH 2010-11-10 4:53 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-10 18:39 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 6:11 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-11 12:19 ` Greg KH 2010-11-11 16:36 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-13 13:35 ` Rakib Mullick 2010-11-13 14:45 ` Greg KH
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.