On 2020-05-17 19:10, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2020/05/18 10:32, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 2020-05-17 18:12, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> On 2020/05/16 9:19, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>> +static void nullb_zero_rq_data_buffer(const struct request *rq)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct req_iterator iter;
>>>> + struct bio_vec bvec;
>>>> +
>>>> + rq_for_each_bvec(bvec, rq, iter)
>>>> + zero_fill_bvec(&bvec);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void nullb_zero_read_cmd_buffer(struct nullb_cmd *cmd)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct nullb_device *dev = cmd->nq->dev;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (dev->queue_mode == NULL_Q_BIO && bio_op(cmd->bio) == REQ_OP_READ)
>>>> + zero_fill_bio(cmd->bio);
>>>> + else if (req_op(cmd->rq) == REQ_OP_READ)
>>>> + nullb_zero_rq_data_buffer(cmd->rq);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the definition of these two functions be under a "#ifdef CONFIG_KMSAN" ?
>>
>> It is on purpose that I used IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) below instead of
>> #ifdef CONFIG_KMSAN. CONFIG_KMSAN is not yet upstream and I want to
>> expose the above code to the build robot.
>
> But then you will get a "defined but unused" build warning, no ?
Not when using IS_ENABLED(...).
Bart.
