[PATCH 5/6]kernel:module.c variable 'nowarn' set but not used

[Justin P. Mattock]

On 06/19/2010 12:45 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 21:10, Justin P. Mattock
> <justinmattock at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 06/19/2010 01:08 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 07:04, Justin P. Mattock
>>> <justinmattock at gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Also wrong, you removed the creation of the links in sysfs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The assignment to nowarn was there to avoid another compiler warning,
>>>>> as sysfs_create_link() is marked __must_check.
>>>>
>>>> I also went back to this one and made the following changes.. let me know
>>>> if
>>>> it's wrong etc..
>>>>
>>>>   From 4f45beed80627d2bb32fb021bb6d22d88089557b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:01:07 -0700
>>>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c
>>>>   Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>   kernel/module.c |    3 +--
>>>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
>>>> index 8c6b428..48fc5c8 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/module.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/module.c
>>>> @@ -1340,11 +1340,10 @@ static void add_usage_links(struct module *mod)
>>>>   {
>>>>   #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
>>>>         struct module_use *use;
>>>> -       int nowarn;
>>>>
>>>>         mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>>>>         list_for_each_entry(use,&mod->target_list, target_list) {
>>>> -               nowarn = sysfs_create_link(use->target->holders_dir,
>>>> +               sysfs_create_link(use->target->holders_dir,
>>>>                                            &mod->mkobj.kobj, mod->name);
>>>>         }
>>>>         mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
>>>> --
>>>> 1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6
>>>>
>>>> if it looks good, then I can resend it out.
>>>
>>> Have you compile-tested this?
>>> As sysfs_create_link() is marked __must_check, that will cause another
>>> compiler
>>> warning, but only if CONFIG_SYSFS=y.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you can just mark the nowarn variable __unused?
>>
>>
>> o.k. this builds cleanly without a warning, but is it the right thing todo?
>> i.g. rather leave the warning message there and file a bug than just silence
>> the issue. Anyways here is what I have:
>>
>>  From edbeb2b1ee051218f9e5b93fcb8bbdbf1119a6e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock at gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:07:32 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] module.c
>>   Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock at gmail.com>
>>
>> ---
>>   kernel/module.c |    2 +-
>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
>> index 8c6b428..765bac5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/module.c
>> +++ b/kernel/module.c
>> @@ -1340,7 +1340,7 @@ static void add_usage_links(struct module *mod)
>>   {
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
>>         struct module_use *use;
>> -       int nowarn;
>> +       int nowarn __attribute__((unused));
>
> The `__attribute__((unused))' should be `__used'.
>

I'm confused now. how should I write that out?
(google is not giving me vary many examples on this)

>>
>>         mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
>>         list_for_each_entry(use,&mod->target_list, target_list) {
>> --
>> 1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> 						Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> 							    -- Linus Torvalds
>

Justin P. Mattock