From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Arnd Bergmann To: Ross Zwisler Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Alexander Viro , Matthew Wilcox , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Dave Chinner , Dan Williams , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dax: try to avoid unused function warnings Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:15:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1946137.McqY686LOu@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20161128212400.GA16225@linux.intel.com> References: <20161128211233.2446605-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20161128212400.GA16225@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday, November 28, 2016 2:24:00 PM CET Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Without the get_block based I/O, we get warnings when CONFIG_FS_IOMAP > > is disabled: > > > > fs/dax.c:736:12: error: ‘dax_insert_mapping’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] > > fs/dax.c:512:12: error: ‘copy_user_dax’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] > > fs/dax.c:490:12: error: ‘dax_load_hole’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] > > fs/dax.c:294:14: error: ‘grab_mapping_entry’ defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function] > > > > This patch blindly marks those as __maybe_unused, which avoids the warnings. > > However, I suspect that there is actually more code in this file that should > > not be provided without CONFIG_FS_IOMAP even though we don't get a warning > > for it, and that we actually want a different rework, so please treat this > > as a bug report. I have applied the patch locally in my randconfig build > > setup to avoid seeing the warnings. > > > > Fixes: 5ac65736f740 ("dax: rip out get_block based IO support") > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > > Thanks for the report. I think the right way to deal with this is to just > select FS_IOMAP when we pull in the DAX code. I sent out a patch last week > that does this: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/23/591 It seems we never got agreement on the approach, and we still get the warnings above in v4.10. Should we use my patch to fix up 4.10 and get a clean build again? It no longer applies, but I have a rebased version that I can send. Arnd