Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] compiler_types: Warn about unused static inline functions on second

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 10:06:16AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 06:01:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 08:16:49AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > and we should
> > > probably drop the sentence about removing __inline_maybe_unused entirely
> > > since people such as Peter will never want this behavior by default. I
> > > do not mind doing it myself if I take it.
> > 
> > But future is uncertain, it might be that GCC also gains this and it won't
> > confuse anyway as it might become a truth (no more such warnings in the code)
> > at some point.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that moving this warning to W=2 is
> basically the same as just turning it off entirely since building with
> W=2 is not a common endeavor for the majority of folks actually writing
> kernel code, so the number of warnings will just continue to grow. At
> that point, there is very little reason to believe that we would be able
> to go from W=2 to enabled by default at some point in the future since
> people already do not like it enabled at W=1 where it is not as
> impactful as enabled by default. As a result, I feel like the comment
> genuinely serves no purpose. If GCC were to change its behavior to
> match clang, I feel like kernel folks would still want the current GCC
> behavior.

Okay, I won't object. But so far the patch taken as is, please fold the changes
you mention in it (will require rebase, but personally I don't care, all
depends on your workflow, followup is also fine to me).

And thanks for taking care of this!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko