Hello, > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 09:33:50AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > unused macros in common header files are an indication of stale APIs > > otoh.. and might be of some interest. (Same for static inline in > > headers) > > Possibly. There's likely to be a lot of macros unused like these ones: Maybe I wasn't precise enough. The script looks for macros which take argument(s) i.e. #define foobar() ... > #define PCI_X_CMD_MAX_READ 0x000c /* Max Memory Read Byte Count */ > /* Max # of outstanding split transactions */ > #define PCI_X_CMD_SPLIT_1 0x0000 /* Max 1 */ > #define PCI_X_CMD_SPLIT_2 0x0010 /* Max 2 */ > #define PCI_X_CMD_SPLIT_3 0x0020 /* Max 3 */ > ... > > where the macros embody the PCI specification in code -- possibly we > don't use them yet, but if we ever did, we'd have the macros to use. Agreed. > Another category of false positive is macros that ought to be used, > but the code that ought to be using them has decided to go its own way. > That still indicates a bug, but not the one you might initially think. Agreed. > In summary, this is probably an interesting exercise, but the results > would need to be interpreted with care. Well I'll just go through some of them. This is long term task as its number is quite big. Maybe I can improve the script some more or apply some other measures. I guess one can find there all sort of macros and some part of them are leftovers from something that was there some time ago. Interesting part would be to write a 'parser' that actually sees the context and understands cpp directives, that could 'walk' the tree. Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html