From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1764761AbdEWQ4O (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 23 May 2017 12:56:14 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:36348 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1764745AbdEWQ4L (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 23 May 2017 12:56:11 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 09:56:08 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/slub: Only define kmalloc_large_node_hook() for
 NUMA systems
Message-ID: <20170523165608.GN141096@google.com>
References: <20170519210036.146880-1-mka@chromium.org>
 <20170519210036.146880-2-mka@chromium.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705221338100.30407@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20170522205621.GL141096@google.com>
 <20170522144501.2d02b5799e07167dc5aecf3e@linux-foundation.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705221834440.13805@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705221834440.13805@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi David,

El Mon, May 22, 2017 at 06:35:23PM -0700 David Rientjes ha dit:

> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > > > Is clang not inlining kmalloc_large_node_hook() for some reason?  I don't 
> > > > think this should ever warn on gcc.
> > > 
> > > clang warns about unused static inline functions outside of header
> > > files, in difference to gcc.
> > 
> > I wish it wouldn't.  These patches just add clutter.
> > 
> 
> Matthias, what breaks if you do this?
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> index de179993e039..e1895ce6fa1b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler-clang.h
> @@ -15,3 +15,8 @@
>   * with any version that can compile the kernel
>   */
>  #define __UNIQUE_ID(prefix) __PASTE(__PASTE(__UNIQUE_ID_, prefix), __COUNTER__)
> +
> +#ifdef inline
> +#undef inline
> +#define inline __attribute__((unused))
> +#endif

Thanks for the suggestion!

Nothing breaks and the warnings are silenced. It seems we could use
this if there is a stong opposition against having warnings on unused
static inline functions in .c files.

Still I am not convinced that gcc's behavior is preferable in this
case. True, it saves us from adding a bunch of __maybe_unused or
#ifdefs, on the other hand the warning is a useful tool to spot truly
unused code. So far about 50% of the warnings I looked into fall into
this category.