Re: [PATCH 5/6]kernel:module.c variable 'nowarn' set but not used

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)