Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:39:16 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: nolibc and __attribute__((__unused__)) |
| |
Hi Paul!
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:33:49PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Hello! > > My guess is that I should ignore the following checkpatch complaint on > the assumption that checkpatch doesn't realize that this is not built > as part of the Linux kernel. But if my guess is incorrect, please let > me know, as it is a trivial change to make. (...) > WARNING: __always_unused or __maybe_unused is preferred over __attribute__((__unused__)) > #24: FILE: tools/include/nolibc/nolibc.h:2246: > +static __attribute__((unused))
Yes you're totally right, we try to keep both trees in sync by minimizing the differences between the two, so as long as that doesn't become a problem I prefer to keep the warning than having to manually apply future patches due to context differences.
Thanks! Willy
| |