Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:41:49 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Cc:     Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        rafael@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver base: slience unused warning
Message-ID: <d98f7107-56d7-44a3-8b77-b8766cdc02d9@kadam.mountain>
References: <45027fa0-cda5-2a80-f1cd-ed805d2717ee@nfschina.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2310041557310.61599@angie.orcam.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2310041557310.61599@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 04:02:01PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023, Su Hui wrote:
> 
> > This variable is been used but never be read, so gcc and W=1 give such
> > warning.
> > 
> > drivers/base/module.c:36:6: error:
> > variable ‘no_warn’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
> > 
> > I wanted to use "__maybe_unused" to avoid  this warning.
> > 
> > However it seems like a wrong using of "__maybe_unused" as Greg KH said:
> > 
> > "But no_warn is being used in this file, it's being set but not read
> > which is ok.  That's a real use, so this change really isn't correct,
> > sorry."
> 
>  The warning itself is a real issue to be sorted though.  Is this a use 
> case for `#pragma GCC diagnostic'?

I thought Greg liked using __maybe_unused in this case?  This is
drivers/base.  Do the rest of us even get a vote?  ;)

If I do have a vote then #pragma is always the worst option.  Linus has
taught me to dislike pragmas a lot.

regards,
dan carpenter