2013-03-05 18:38:16

by Raphael S Carvalho

Subject: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/smpboot.c: Fix GCC Warning (unused variable)!

GCC complained about the unused variable c, thus I'm sending
this patch in order to calm it down.
I compiled the file and everything seems be ok!

Signed-off-by: Raphael S.Carvalho <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
index a6ceaed..77a5616 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
@@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ static inline void mwait_play_dead(void)
unsigned int highest_subcstate = 0;
int i;
void *mwait_ptr;
- struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = __this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info);
+ __this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info);

if (!this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
return;
--
1.7.2.5

2013-03-05 22:02:28

by Thomas Gleixner

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/smpboot.c: Fix GCC Warning (unused variable)!

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Raphael S.Carvalho wrote:

> GCC complained about the unused variable c, thus I'm sending
> this patch in order to calm it down.
> I compiled the file and everything seems be ok!

What is your patch solving? How about removing the line completely?
And how about providing a changelog which makes sense ?

Thanks,

tglx

> Signed-off-by: Raphael S.Carvalho <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> index a6ceaed..77a5616 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ static inline void mwait_play_dead(void)
> unsigned int highest_subcstate = 0;
> int i;
> void *mwait_ptr;
> - struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = __this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info);
> + __this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info);
>
> if (!this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
> return;
> --
> 1.7.2.5
>
>

2013-03-05 22:11:38

by H. Peter Anvin

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/x86/smpboot.c: Fix GCC Warning (unused variable)!

On 03/05/2013 02:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> What is your patch solving? How about removing the line completely?
> And how about providing a changelog which makes sense ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>

We already have an actually correct patch for this warning; I will apply
it later.

-hpa