* Re: [PATCH] ceph: mark lock variable __maybe_unused in ceph_count_file_locks
2024-02-06 14:52 [PATCH] ceph: mark lock variable __maybe_unused in ceph_count_file_locks Jeff Layton
@ 2024-02-06 15:08 ` Jeff Layton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Layton @ 2024-02-06 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Brauner, Xiubo Li, Ilya Dryomov
Cc: ceph-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, kernel test robot
On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 09:52 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> The "lock" variable won't be used if CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n. We can't
> remove it altogether though, since we do need it for the
> for_each_file_lock loops. Reduce its scope and mark it __maybe_unused.
>
> Fixes: 3956f35fbd36 ("ceph: adapt to breakup of struct file_lock")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402062210.3YyBVGF1-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> ---
> This warning is fallout from the big file_lock re-org, so this should
> probably go in via Christian's tree.
> ---
> fs/ceph/locks.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/locks.c b/fs/ceph/locks.c
> index ebf4ac0055dd..edfbf94f0d14 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/locks.c
> @@ -377,7 +377,6 @@ int ceph_flock(struct file *file, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
> void ceph_count_locks(struct inode *inode, int *fcntl_count, int *flock_count)
> {
> struct ceph_client *cl = ceph_inode_to_client(inode);
> - struct file_lock *lock;
> struct file_lock_context *ctx;
>
> *fcntl_count = 0;
> @@ -385,6 +384,8 @@ void ceph_count_locks(struct inode *inode, int *fcntl_count, int *flock_count)
>
> ctx = locks_inode_context(inode);
> if (ctx) {
> + struct file_lock __maybe_unused *lock;
> +
> spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> for_each_file_lock(lock, &ctx->flc_posix)
> ++(*fcntl_count);
>
> ---
> base-commit: 77f8316a9199a752ffcd136bd01d0566f54e0ea9
> change-id: 20240206-flsplit-d4f427d9e0ad
>
> Best regards,
On second thought...the simpler fix would probably be to just eliminate
the version of for_each_file_lock when CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n, and
unconditionally define it.
Should we do this instead? It also seems to fix the warning:
diff --git a/include/linux/filelock.h b/include/linux/filelock.h
index 553d65a88048..7d819a760c8f 100644
--- a/include/linux/filelock.h
+++ b/include/linux/filelock.h
@@ -180,9 +180,6 @@ static inline void locks_wake_up(struct file_lock *fl)
wake_up(&fl->c.flc_wait);
}
-/* for walking lists of file_locks linked by fl_list */
-#define for_each_file_lock(_fl, _head) list_for_each_entry(_fl, _head, c.flc_list)
-
/* fs/locks.c */
void locks_free_lock_context(struct inode *inode);
void locks_free_lock(struct file_lock *fl);
@@ -282,8 +279,6 @@ static inline void locks_wake_up(struct file_lock *fl)
{
}
-#define for_each_file_lock(_fl, _head) while(false)
-
static inline void
locks_free_lock_context(struct inode *inode)
{
@@ -407,6 +402,9 @@ locks_inode_context(const struct inode *inode)
#endif /* !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
+/* for walking lists of file_locks linked by fl_list */
+#define for_each_file_lock(_fl, _head) list_for_each_entry(_fl, _head, c.flc_list)
+
static inline int locks_lock_file_wait(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
{
return locks_lock_inode_wait(file_inode(filp), fl);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread