From: Mingming Cao Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 3][PATCH 1/1] ext4 nanosecond timestamp Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:08:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1184699323.3820.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1183275416.4010.125.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070710163027.1bf7e94e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1184633395.3836.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1184666370.7063.13.camel@garfield.linsyssoft.com> Reply-To: cmm@us.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Kalpak Shah Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1184666370.7063.13.camel@garfield.linsyssoft.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:29 +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 17:49 -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 16:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 03:36:56 -0400 > > > Mingming Cao wrote: > > > > +static inline __le32 ext4_encode_extra_time(struct timespec *time) > > > > +{ > > > > + return cpu_to_le32((sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4 ? > > > > + time->tv_sec >> 32 : 0) | > > > > + ((time->tv_nsec << 2) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK)); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static inline void ext4_decode_extra_time(struct timespec *time, __le32 extra) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4) > > > > + time->tv_sec |= (__u64)(le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK) > > > > + << 32; > > > > + time->tv_nsec = (le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK) >> 2; > > > > +} > > > > > > Consider uninlining these functions. > > > > > I got compile warining after apply Kalpal's update nanosecond patch, > > which makes these two function inline. It complains these functions are > > defined but not used. It's being used only in the following > > micros(EXT4_INODE_SET_XTIME etc). So if the .c file included the > > ext4_fs.h but not using the micros, the compile will think these two > > functions are not used. > > The compile warnings were introduced because the functions were > uninlined. So we can either keep these functions inlined or consider > adding a "__used" attribute to these two functions. > okay for now I keep these functions inlined. > Thanks, > Kalpak. >