Hi all,
After merging the Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76:26: warning: 'btrfs_root_attrs' defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97:26: warning: 'btrfs_super_attrs' defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153:13: warning: 'btrfs_super_release' defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160:13: warning: 'btrfs_root_release' defined but not used
I have started using gcc v4.5.2 (instead of v4.4.4) if that makes a
difference.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:36:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> After merging the Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
>
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76:26: warning: 'btrfs_root_attrs' defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97:26: warning: 'btrfs_super_attrs' defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153:13: warning: 'btrfs_super_release' defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160:13: warning: 'btrfs_root_release' defined but not used
>
> I have started using gcc v4.5.2 (instead of v4.4.4) if that makes a
> difference.
the warning probably started to show up after one of my cleanup patches,
removing unused functions (f2a97a9dbd86eb1ef956bdf20e05c507b32beb96).
The sysfs interface is not being used right now, but there's a unmerged
patchset which adds the interesting bits like info about available btrfs
filesystems and devices. I don't know what are the intentions regarding
sysfs.
david
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM, David Sterba <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:36:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> After merging the Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
>> ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
>>
>> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76:26: warning: 'btrfs_root_attrs' defined but not used
>> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97:26: warning: 'btrfs_super_attrs' defined but not used
>> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153:13: warning: 'btrfs_super_release' defined but not used
>> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160:13: warning: 'btrfs_root_release' defined but not used
>>
>> I have started using gcc v4.5.2 (instead of v4.4.4) if that makes a
>> difference.
>
> the warning probably started to show up after one of my cleanup patches,
> removing unused functions (f2a97a9dbd86eb1ef956bdf20e05c507b32beb96).
> The sysfs interface is not being used right now, but there's a unmerged
> patchset which adds the interesting bits like info about available btrfs
> filesystems and devices. I don't know what are the intentions regarding
> sysfs.
>
>
> david
I've been playing around with resurrecting the basic sysfs
capabilities that had been previously incorporated into btrfs.
As it stands right now, it was relatively easy to re-implement sysfs
as it was originally. However, that implementation of sysfs wasn't
populated with much information (only total_blocks, blocks_used, and
blocksize).
I also had to reverse a small portion of code that was in the last clean-up.
If a CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG type configuration flag is ever introduced, it
would be interesting to resurrect btrfs' sysfs capabilities.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:16:48AM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
> I've been playing around with resurrecting the basic sysfs
> capabilities that had been previously incorporated into btrfs.
>
> As it stands right now, it was relatively easy to re-implement sysfs
> as it was originally. However, that implementation of sysfs wasn't
> populated with much information (only total_blocks, blocks_used, and
> blocksize).
Goffredo Baroncelli (CCed) posted a patch to enhance sysfs interface:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/308902/
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg06777.html)
> I also had to reverse a small portion of code that was in the last
> clean-up.
Restoring the code should not be a problem, the cleanup was too eager
and I think a sysfs inteface would be good, not only for debugging
purposes or tuning.
> If a CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG type configuration flag is ever introduced, it
> would be interesting to resurrect btrfs' sysfs capabilities.
Hearing about CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG again, seems worth to add it.
david
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:10:49PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:16:48AM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
> > I've been playing around with resurrecting the basic sysfs
> > capabilities that had been previously incorporated into btrfs.
> >
> > As it stands right now, it was relatively easy to re-implement sysfs
> > as it was originally. However, that implementation of sysfs wasn't
> > populated with much information (only total_blocks, blocks_used, and
> > blocksize).
>
> Goffredo Baroncelli (CCed) posted a patch to enhance sysfs interface:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/308902/
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg06777.html)
>
> > I also had to reverse a small portion of code that was in the last
> > clean-up.
>
> Restoring the code should not be a problem, the cleanup was too eager
> and I think a sysfs inteface would be good, not only for debugging
> purposes or tuning.
Indeed. There's a few parts of the balance API that would be
significantly enhanced by being able to put things in sysfs. I could
drop at least one (if not two) of the three ioctls if I had somewhere
in sysfs to put the relevant files.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty; it is twice as ---
large as it needs to be.
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the Linus' tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced these warnings:
>
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76:26: warning: 'btrfs_root_attrs' defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97:26: warning: 'btrfs_super_attrs' defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153:13: warning: 'btrfs_super_release' defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160:13: warning: 'btrfs_root_release' defined but not used
>
> I have started using gcc v4.5.2 (instead of v4.4.4) if that makes a
> difference.
I see the same warnings with Debian's gcc-4.6 (here: next-20110603),
plus some more:
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_fs_info.isra.24':
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2080:1: warning: the frame size of 1032 bytes is
larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c: In function 'btrfs_batch_insert_items':
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:690:9: warning: 'nitems' may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized]
- Sedat -
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
>
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:10:49PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:16:48AM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote:
> > I've been playing around with resurrecting the basic sysfs
> > capabilities that had been previously incorporated into btrfs.
> >
> > As it stands right now, it was relatively easy to re-implement sysfs
> > as it was originally. However, that implementation of sysfs wasn't
> > populated with much information (only total_blocks, blocks_used, and
> > blocksize).
>
> Goffredo Baroncelli (CCed) posted a patch to enhance sysfs interface:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/308902/
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg06777.html)
>
> > I also had to reverse a small portion of code that was in the last
> > clean-up.
>
> Restoring the code should not be a problem, the cleanup was too eager
> and I think a sysfs inteface would be good, not only for debugging
> purposes or tuning.
>
> > If a CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG type configuration flag is ever introduced, it
> > would be interesting to resurrect btrfs' sysfs capabilities.
>
> Hearing about CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG again, seems worth to add it.
For debugging stuff, please use debugfs instead of sysfs, as that is
what it is there for.
thanks,
greg k-h