From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] xen/misc: Remove or annotate possibly-unused functions
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:15:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56BB37FC.2020403@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56BB43FB02000078000D08DB@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
On 10/02/16 13:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.02.16 at 21:01, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/rcupdate.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/rcupdate.c
>> @@ -141,12 +141,6 @@ static inline int rcu_batch_before(long a, long b)
>> return (a - b) < 0;
>> }
>>
>> -/* Is batch a after batch b ? */
>> -static inline int rcu_batch_after(long a, long b)
>> -{
>> - return (a - b) > 0;
>> -}
> To me it is the nature of inline functions that they may or may not be
> used, regardless of whether they live in a header file (where I would
> have supposed Clang won't warn about, but the change below makes
> me assume I'm wrong) or in a source file.
>
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/compat.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/compat.h
>> @@ -134,14 +134,16 @@
>> #define CHECK_NAME_(k, n, tag) __check ## tag ## k ## _ ## n
>>
>> #define CHECK_TYPE(name) \
>> -static inline int CHECK_NAME(name, T)(xen_ ## name ## _t *x, \
>> - compat_ ## name ## _t *c) \
>> +static inline int __maybe_unused \
>> +CHECK_NAME(name, T)(xen_ ## name ## _t *x, \
>> + compat_ ## name ## _t *c) \
>> { \
>> return x == c; \
>> }
>> #define CHECK_TYPE_(k, n) \
>> -static inline int CHECK_NAME_(k, n, T)(k xen_ ## n *x, \
>> - k compat_ ## n *c) \
>> +static inline int __maybe_unused \
>> +CHECK_NAME_(k, n, T)(k xen_ ## n *x, \
>> + k compat_ ## n *c) \
>> { \
>> return x == c; \
>> }
>> @@ -154,14 +156,14 @@ static inline int CHECK_NAME_(k, n, T)(k xen_ ## n *x, \
>> sizeof(k compat_ ## n)) * 2]
>>
>> #define CHECK_FIELD_COMMON(name, t, f) \
>> -static inline int name(xen_ ## t ## _t *x, compat_ ## t ## _t *c) \
>> +static inline int __maybe_unused name(xen_ ## t ## _t *x, compat_ ## t ## _t *c) \
>> { \
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(xen_ ## t ## _t, f) != \
>> offsetof(compat_ ## t ## _t, f)); \
>> return &x->f == &c->f; \
>> }
>> #define CHECK_FIELD_COMMON_(k, name, n, f) \
>> -static inline int name(k xen_ ## n *x, k compat_ ## n *c) \
>> +static inline int __maybe_unused name(k xen_ ## n *x, k compat_ ## n *c) \
>> { \
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(k xen_ ## n, f) != \
>> offsetof(k compat_ ## n, f)); \
> So if these are all noticed to be unused, why would others in other
> header files not be?
Because they are instantiated in translation units, with no callers, by
code like common/trace.c:
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
#include <compat/trace.h>
#define xen_t_buf t_buf
CHECK_t_buf;
#undef xen_t_buf
#else
#define compat_t_rec t_rec
#endif
This was the first example which blew up.
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-10 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-09 20:01 [PATCH 0/8] xen/x86: Fix build with Clang 3.5 Andrew Cooper
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 1/8] xen/lib: Fix ASSERT() to build with clang Andrew Cooper
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 2/8] xen/misc: Remove or annotate possibly-unused functions Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 10:42 ` Tim Deegan
2016-02-10 13:06 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-10 13:15 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 3/8] xen/x86: Remove %z modifier from inline assembly Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 13:10 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 4/8] xen/x86: Fix section type mismatch in mm.c Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 10:01 ` George Dunlap
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 5/8] xen/x86: Improve annotation of autogen_entrypoints[] Andrew Cooper
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 6/8] xen/x86: Avoid overriding initialisers in arrays Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 10:11 ` George Dunlap
2016-02-10 13:22 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-10 13:50 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 14:03 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-10 14:13 ` George Dunlap
2016-02-16 7:06 ` Tian, Kevin
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 7/8] xen/x86: Fix get_cpu_info() when built with clang Andrew Cooper
2016-02-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 8/8] x86/efi: Generate uefi_call_wrapper() when compiling " Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 13:31 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-10 13:41 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-10 19:11 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-02-11 10:45 ` Jan Beulich
2016-02-09 21:09 ` [PATCH 0/8] xen/x86: Fix build with Clang 3.5 Doug Goldstein
2016-02-10 9:28 ` Ian Campbell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56BB37FC.2020403@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).