nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__))

nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__))

[Paul E. McKenney]

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.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
/tmp/rcu/0002-tools-nolibc-Implement-msleep.patch
-------------------------------------------------
WARNING: __always_unused or __maybe_unused is preferred over __attribute__((__unused__))
#24: FILE: tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h:2246:
+static __attribute__((unused))

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 19 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.

/tmp/rcu/0002-tools-nolibc-Implement-msleep.patch has style problems, please review.

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

Re: nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__))

[Willy Tarreau]

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

Re: nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__))

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:39:16PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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.

Very well, and I will continue to ignore this sort of warning from
checkpatch for nolibc files.

							Thanx, Paul