On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:03:02PM +0000, Luick, Dean wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Carpenter > > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 2:45 AM > > To: John, Jubin <jubin.john@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dledford@xxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] staging/rdma/hfi1: Read EFI variable for device > > description > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:33:32AM -0500, Jubin John wrote: > > > +static int read_efi_var(const char *name, unsigned long *size, > > > + void **return_data) > > > +{ > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + /* set failure return values */ > > > + *size = 0; > > > + *return_data = NULL; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Use EFI run-time support to obtain an EFI variable. Support may > > > + * be compiled out, so declare all variables inside. > > > + */ > > > + if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) { > > > > > > Flip this around: > > > > if (!efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES)) > > return -ENOSYS; > > The style here is very deliberate. > > The issue is how efi_enabled() is defined via CONFIG options. > The function can be turned into a 0 if certain CONFIG variables are > not set. The code is structured to make all of the dependent > variables disappear if efi_enabled() becomes 0. This all understand. > If the code is shifted as you suggest, we will get builds from the > automatic builders that try all combinations with unused variables. > This was done to avoid that. I'm not sure I understand. You are doing this to try tricking the autobuilders into not testind certain configs? What? I don't understand what you mean by unused variables. There shouldn't be any unused variable warnings. If you are getting unused variable warnings can you post one so that I can take a look? Maybe you are worried the function is a waste of memory if you declare the variables earlier before the if enabled check? It's not a problem. The compiler is smart enough to see the immediate return and removes the dead code. Perhaps I am not seeing your concern. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
