From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38078 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqATW-0001jY-Iw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:57:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <rth@twiddle.net>) id 1OqATT-0001Yk-4t
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:57:00 -0400
Received: from b.mail.sonic.net ([64.142.19.5]:34020)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <rth@twiddle.net>) id 1OqATS-0001YN-OK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:56:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7C0574.4000009@twiddle.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:24:36 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 05/14] Remove unused argument
	for	check_for_block_signature()
References: <1283183960-28404-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>	<1283183960-28404-6-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>	<4C7BD96E.3010500@codemonkey.ws>
	<4C7BDEF7.4070601@redhat.com>	<4C7BF622.50706@redhat.com>
	<4C7BF828.7060102@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4C7BF828.7060102@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

On 08/30/2010 11:27 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 01:19 PM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> 
>> I totally agree on this. The problem with having such arguments
>> passed in is that you never know if they were used in the past and
>> it was forgotten when the code using them was removed, or if it's
>> new code, in which case they do deserve the extra scrutiny.
>> 
> 
> Or, we exercise common sense instead of blinding removing arguments
> just because a certain uncommon warning mode of GCC complains.

If you make a reasoned decision to keep the argument,
then annotate it with

#define UNUSED  __attribute__((unused))

and the warning will go away.

As to whether the argument should be retained in these
specific cases, I am agnostic.


r~