Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755796Ab0FSUKi (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:10:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:63834 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753319Ab0FSUKg (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:10:36 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CT5wjM+GYS+mGizftA0tzgD1a4sYM4a/9MGUc4KVTGapS/CmHpR75ucbceKOuTyRAT Jp9RmoRW0Z7j7RKDA2uFQUxFwTuC9TMv82kNMMdIWz1MmIp+ITjTSIvfx008Qrd1gBfH rE/SxMPpsG4IBzF/2yw+O3gzZR+nZEDVdD570= Message-ID: <4C1D243D.2070302@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:10:37 -0700 From: "Justin P. Mattock" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091114 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geert Uytterhoeven CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, zippel@linux-m68k.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6]kernel:module.c variable 'nowarn' set but not used References: <1276288869-16815-1-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <1276288869-16815-6-git-send-email-justinmattock@gmail.com> <4C1C4FDE.2090101@gmail.com> <4C1D160D.5030303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3839 Lines: 113 On 06/19/2010 12:45 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 21:10, Justin P. Mattock > wrote: >> On 06/19/2010 01:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:04, Justin P. Mattock >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Also wrong, you removed the creation of the links in sysfs. >>>>> >>>>> The assignment to nowarn was there to avoid another compiler warning, >>>>> as sysfs_create_link() is marked __must_check. >>>> >>>> I also went back to this one and made the following changes.. let me know >>>> if >>>> it's wrong etc.. >>>> >>>> From 4f45beed80627d2bb32fb021bb6d22d88089557b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: Justin P. Mattock >>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700 >>>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c >>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock >>>> >>>> --- >>>> kernel/module.c | 3 +-- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c >>>> index 8c6b428..48fc5c8 100644 >>>> --- a/kernel/module.c >>>> +++ b/kernel/module.c >>>> @@ -1340,11 +1340,10 @@ static void add_usage_links(struct module *mod) >>>> { >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD >>>> struct module_use *use; >>>> - int nowarn; >>>> >>>> mutex_lock(&module_mutex); >>>> list_for_each_entry(use,&mod->target_list, target_list) { >>>> - nowarn = sysfs_create_link(use->target->holders_dir, >>>> + sysfs_create_link(use->target->holders_dir, >>>> &mod->mkobj.kobj, mod->name); >>>> } >>>> mutex_unlock(&module_mutex); >>>> -- >>>> 1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6 >>>> >>>> if it looks good, then I can resend it out. >>> >>> Have you compile-tested this? >>> As sysfs_create_link() is marked __must_check, that will cause another >>> compiler >>> warning, but only if CONFIG_SYSFS=y. >>> >>> Perhaps you can just mark the nowarn variable __unused? >> >> >> o.k. this builds cleanly without a warning, but is it the right thing todo? >> i.g. rather leave the warning message there and file a bug than just silence >> the issue. Anyways here is what I have: >> >> From edbeb2b1ee051218f9e5b93fcb8bbdbf1119a6e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Justin P. Mattock >> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:07:32 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c >> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock >> >> --- >> kernel/module.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c >> index 8c6b428..765bac5 100644 >> --- a/kernel/module.c >> +++ b/kernel/module.c >> @@ -1340,7 +1340,7 @@ static void add_usage_links(struct module *mod) >> { >> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD >> struct module_use *use; >> - int nowarn; >> + int nowarn __attribute__((unused)); > > The `__attribute__((unused))' should be `__used'. > I'm confused now. how should I write that out? (google is not giving me vary many examples on this) >> >> mutex_lock(&module_mutex); >> list_for_each_entry(use,&mod->target_list, target_list) { >> -- >> 1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6 > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds > Justin P. Mattock -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/