From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58F4C6377B for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFAD61221 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233755AbhGUT6q (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:58:46 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:32844 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229463AbhGUT6p (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:58:45 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 16LKdGOJ027470; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:39:16 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:39:16 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: broonie@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__)) Message-ID: <20210721203916.GC27330@1wt.eu> References: <20210721203349.GA3209274@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210721203349.GA3209274@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Paul! On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:33:49PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hello! > > My guess is that I should ignore the following checkpatch complaint on > the assumption that checkpatch doesn't realize that this is not built > as part of the Linux kernel. But if my guess is incorrect, please let > me know, as it is a trivial change to make. (...) > WARNING: __always_unused or __maybe_unused is preferred over __attribute__((__unused__)) > #24: FILE: tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h:2246: > +static __attribute__((unused)) Yes you're totally right, we try to keep both trees in sync by minimizing the differences between the two, so as long as that doesn't become a problem I prefer to keep the warning than having to manually apply future patches due to context differences. Thanks! Willy