On 2020/05/18 11:56, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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(...).
I do not understand: the "if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN))" will be compiled out if
CONFIG_KMSAN is not enabled/defined, but the function definitions will still
remain, won't they ? That will lead to "defined but unused" warning, no ? What
am I missing here ?
>
> Bart.
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
