Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-168846-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 16:02:57 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Kuan-Wei Chiu
 <visitorckw@gmail.com>, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, ndesaulniers@google.com,
 morbo@google.com, justinstitt@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 maple-tree@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
 jserv@ccns.ncku.edu.tw
Subject: Re: [PATCH] maple_tree: Fix build failure with W=1 and LLVM=1
Message-Id: <20240504160257.02e20addebc407cb4a18da48@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240503160821.GB3960118@thelio-3990X>
References: <20240503095027.747838-1-visitorckw@gmail.com>
	<ZjTWkM9hTnoIhzqV@casper.infradead.org>
	<ZjTgEsuxYF29AVFJ@visitorckw-System-Product-Name>
	<ZjTmqM4ePSZgSt9_@casper.infradead.org>
	<20240503160821.GB3960118@thelio-3990X>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 3 May 2024 09:08:21 -0700 Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:

> This patch has effectively been sent four times now:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220914101829.82000-1-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230217084647.50471-1-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230319132903.1702426-1-trix@redhat.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240503095027.747838-1-visitorckw@gmail.com/ (this change obviously)
> 
> Your first comment from the 2022 patch:
> 
>   They're not used now, but they will be in a release or two.
> 
> I think a few releases have passed since then :) I don't personally care
> if there is a solution here or not, as I don't test with W=1 (there's
> enough to do at W=0 :P), but maybe it is time for either __maybe_unused
> (as that strikes at the heart of the issue) or at the very least a
> comment saying "hey, these functions are currently unused but there are
> plans for them to be used, so don't remove them", rather than just
> saying the status quo?

We could just slap a #if 0 around them.  But I don't think it'll kill us to
have to type them in again one day ;)