> 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 <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c  Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; ---  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.

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:04, Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; > Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c > Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; > > --- > 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?

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 21:10, Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On 06/19/2010 01:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:04, Justin P. Mattock >> <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700 >>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c >>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> >>> --- >>> 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&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; > Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:07:32 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c > Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; > > --- > 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'.

> > 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(a)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

On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 22:10, Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On 06/19/2010 12:45 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 21:10, Justin P. Mattock >> <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On 06/19/2010 01:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:04, Justin P. Mattock >>>> <justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700 >>>>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c >>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> 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&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:07:32 -0700 >>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c >>> Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock&lt;justinmattock(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> >>> --- >>> 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) Sorry, I misrememberd there was a #define for it, and could find only __used. But on closer look, the `__attribute__((unused)` is correct.