2019-04-05 03:26:13

by Stephen Rothwell

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

Hi James,

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

drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c:2140:1: warning: 'lpfc_nvme_lport_unreg_wait' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
lpfc_nvme_lport_unreg_wait(struct lpfc_vport *vport,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Introduced by commit

3999df75bccb ("scsi: lpfc: Declare local functions static")

It use is guarded by IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NVME_FC).

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell


Attachments:
(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2019-04-05 04:32:09

by Bart Van Assche

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

On 4/4/19 8:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> After merging the scsi tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
>
> drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c:2140:1: warning: 'lpfc_nvme_lport_unreg_wait' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
> lpfc_nvme_lport_unreg_wait(struct lpfc_vport *vport,
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Introduced by commit
>
> 3999df75bccb ("scsi: lpfc: Declare local functions static")
>
> It use is guarded by IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NVME_FC).

I will have a closer look at this tomorrow.

Bart.


2019-04-05 04:53:50

by James Bottomley

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

On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 21:30 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 4/4/19 8:25 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > After merging the scsi tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> > ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> >
> > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_nvme.c:2140:1: warning:
> > 'lpfc_nvme_lport_unreg_wait' defined but not used [-Wunused-
> > function]
> > lpfc_nvme_lport_unreg_wait(struct lpfc_vport *vport,
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Introduced by commit
> >
> > 3999df75bccb ("scsi: lpfc: Declare local functions static")
> >
> > It use is guarded by IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NVME_FC).
>
> I will have a closer look at this tomorrow.

In the meantime, we can just revert the patch. Making functions static
serves no real purpose except it does tell the compiler they have to be
used internally which is where the problem is coming from. Once the
issue is sorted, the static patch can be reapplied.

James