From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:05:27 +0800 Message-ID: <4DF57067.2040808@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1307879298-sup-3080@shiny> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Chris Mason , Linus Torvalds , linux-btrfs , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: 09:02, Andi Kleen wrote: > Chris Mason writes: >=20 >> Hi everyone, >> >> The for-linus branch of the btrfs unstable tree: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.g= it for-linus >=20 >> >> Has our current queue of fixes. Josef's is the biggest pile, mostly= in >> the allocator. Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoid >> mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is just= a >> little too easy sometimes (I double checked the resulting code). >=20 > The new in 3.0 btrfs warnings on every build are still there: >=20 > fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_root_attrs=E2=80=99 defi= ned but not used > fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_super_attrs=E2=80=99 def= ined but not used > fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_super_release=E2=80=99 = defined but not used =20 > fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: =E2=80=98btrfs_root_release=E2=80=99 d= efined but not used >=20 > These are not even used inside any ifdef. It's unclear to me: were > these supposed to be used or removed? >=20 > Probably better to remove since they seem to be untested, unless > it was a merge error? >=20