From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/HPET: cache MSI message last written
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:32:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CCA6DCD8.50130%keir@xen.org>
References: <5081241402000078000A2837@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <5081241402000078000A2837@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 19/10/2012 08:57, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

>>> That wouldn't be correct: The function _is_ unused (and there's
>>> no issue if it was used afaik), and the __used__ attribute ought
>>> to tell the compiler to keep the function around despite not
>>> having (visible to it) callers.
>> 
>> Perhaps our __attribute_used__ definition should change, then?
> 
> I don't think so - this has its own value as is. We may want to add
> a Linux-like __maybe_unused, though.

Could you do that, and add comments to the definitions of __attribute_used__
and __maybe_unused, describing exactly what they are to be used for?

 Thanks,
 Keir