From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:39:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <4966AB74.2090104@zytor.com> <20090109133710.GB31845@elte.hu> <20090109204103.GA17212@elte.hu> <20090109213442.GA20051@elte.hu> <1231537320.5726.2.camel@brick> <20090109231227.GA25070@elte.hu> <20090110010125.GA31031@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Harvey Harrison , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090110010125.GA31031@elte.hu> List-ID: On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - 'static inline' functions in .c files that are not used cause no build > warnings - while if we change them to 'static', we get a 'defined but > not used' warning. Hundreds of new warnings in the allyesconfig builds. Well, duh. Maybe they shouldn't be marked "inline", and maybe they should be marked with "__maybe_unused" instead. I do not think it makes sense to use "inline" as a way to say "maybe I won't use this function". Yes, it's true that "static inline" won't warn, but hey, as a way to avoid a warning it's a pretty bad one. Linus