From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752475AbaCHCVy (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 21:21:54 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:51308 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751490AbaCHCVx (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2014 21:21:53 -0500 Message-ID: <531A7EBC.1050205@converseincode.com> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:21:48 -0800 From: Behan Webster User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches CC: khali@linux-fr.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, pageexec@freemail.hu, Mark Charlebois Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: LLVMLinux: Remove unused function warning from __param_check macro References: <531A73EB.6060403@codeaurora.org> <1394244623-25623-1-git-send-email-behanw@converseincode.com> <1394245074.6972.7.camel@joe-AO722> In-Reply-To: <1394245074.6972.7.camel@joe-AO722> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/07/14 18:17, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 18:10 -0800, behanw@converseincode.com wrote: >> This code makes a compile time type check that is optimized away. Clang >> complains that it generates an unused function. > [] >> diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h > [] >> @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ static inline void destroy_params(const struct kernel_param *params, >> /* The macros to do compile-time type checking stolen from Jakub >> Jelinek, who IIRC came up with this idea for the 2.4 module init code. */ >> #define __param_check(name, p, type) \ >> - static inline type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); } >> + static inline __always_unused type *__check_##name(void) { return(p); } > Perhaps __maybe_unused ? I thought about that (and even tested with __maybe_unused), but I *think* they are always unused, except at compile time (see comment above). Though I could be wrong. I'm certainly okay with __maybe_unused if that is preferable. Behan -- Behan Webster behanw@converseincode.com