2010-02-11 06:10:27

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: build warning after merge of the suspend tree

Hi Rafael,

After merging the suspend tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:

drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c:138: warning: 'wait_for_companions' defined but not used

Introduced by commit ce74abf51a15ab82a9fae6dcd8a9c0038945f10e ("USB:
implement non-tree resume ordering constraints for PCI host controllers").

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachments:
(No filename) (452.00 B)
 (No filename) (198.00 B)
 Download all attachments

2010-02-11 13:11:03

by Rafael J. Wysocki

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the suspend tree

On Thursday 11 February 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> After merging the suspend tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
>
> drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c:138: warning: 'wait_for_companions' defined but not used
>
> Introduced by commit ce74abf51a15ab82a9fae6dcd8a9c0038945f10e ("USB:
> implement non-tree resume ordering constraints for PCI host controllers").

Thanks for the info, I'll fix this up later today in my tree.

Rafael

2010-02-11 15:32:12

by Alan Stern

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the suspend tree

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Thursday 11 February 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > After merging the suspend tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> >
> > drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c:138: warning: 'wait_for_companions' defined but not used
> >
> > Introduced by commit ce74abf51a15ab82a9fae6dcd8a9c0038945f10e ("USB:
> > implement non-tree resume ordering constraints for PCI host controllers").
>
> Thanks for the info, I'll fix this up later today in my tree.

Clearly wait_for_companions() needs to be inside "#ifdef
CONFIG_PM_SLEEP ... #endif". In fact, all the new functions added by
the patch should be protected this way, with suitable do-nothing inline
versions provided when CONFIG_PM_SLEEP isn't defined.

Alan Stern