From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bolle Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] scsi: ufs-qcom: fix compilation warning if compiled as a module Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:29:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1432110592.21715.50.camel@x220> References: <1432043231-31102-1-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> <1432043231-31102-3-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1432043231-31102-3-git-send-email-ygardi@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yaniv Gardi Cc: James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, kishon@ti.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, santoshsy@gmail.com, linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org, subhashj@codeaurora.org, gbroner@codeaurora.org, dovl@codeaurora.org, Vinayak Holikatti , "James E.J. Bottomley" List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:47 +0300, Yaniv Gardi wrote: > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c > @@ -885,7 +885,7 @@ out: > > #define ANDROID_BOOT_DEV_MAX 30 > static char android_boot_dev[ANDROID_BOOT_DEV_MAX]; > -static int get_android_boot_dev(char *str) > +static int __maybe_unused get_android_boot_dev(char *str) > { > strlcpy(android_boot_dev, str, ANDROID_BOOT_DEV_MAX); > return 1; Wouldn't it be clearer to wrap these few lines (until after the __setup() macro) with #ifndef MODULE? And I think get_android_boot_dev() could be marked __init. Because if it's built-in it will never be called after the kernel has finished booting, right? Paul Bolle