On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, Matthieu Baerts wrote:

>  net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c: In function ‘mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_received’:
>  net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c:238:23: warning: variable ‘pernet’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>    238 |  struct pm_nl_pernet *pernet;
>        |                       ^~~~~~
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net>
> ---
>
> Notes:
>    to be squashed in "mptcp: add netlink-based PM"
>
> net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
> index 4bab1b32f932..743c3c58f826 100644
> --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c
> @@ -235,9 +235,6 @@ void mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_received(struct mptcp_sock *msk)
> 	struct sock *sk = (struct sock *)msk;
> 	struct mptcp_addr_info remote;
> 	struct mptcp_addr_info local;
> -	struct pm_nl_pernet *pernet;
> -
> -	pernet = net_generic(sock_net((struct sock *)msk), pm_nl_pernet_id);
>
> 	pr_debug("accepted %d:%d remote family %d",
> 		 msk->pm.add_addr_accepted, msk->pm.add_addr_accept_max,

I think this is ok to drop for now. Looks like it's left over from copied 
code, but we should double-check with Paolo tomorrow in case it was 
intended to check the pernet limits.

--
Mat Martineau
Intel