Le 30/08/2021 à 11:48, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:17:47PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus.h b/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus.h
index 7c71bdef7ccb..55d47cb13a7b 100644
--- a/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus.h
+++ b/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus.h
@@ -87,7 +87,6 @@ struct xilly_channel {
};
struct xilly_endpoint {
- struct pci_dev *pdev;
struct device *dev;
struct xilly_endpoint_hardware *ephw;
diff --git a/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus_core.c b/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus_core.c
index 931d0bf4cec6..0ced9ec6977f 100644
--- a/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus_core.c
+++ b/drivers/char/xillybus/xillybus_core.c
@@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ struct xilly_endpoint *xillybus_init_endpoint(struct pci_dev *pdev,
if (!endpoint)
return NULL;
- endpoint->pdev = pdev;
+ (void)pdev; // silence a compiler warning, will be removed
Just out of curiousity which compiler warning is this? I don't think
GCC will complain. I think there are other compilers which complain but
I don't know which.
endpoint->dev = dev;
endpoint->ephw = ephw;
endpoint->msg_counter = 0x0b;
regards,
dan carpenter
Well, I first did something like:
> - endpoint->pdev = pdev;
> + pdev;
in order to avoid a *potential* warning about unused parameter.
gcc (10.3.0) complains about it.
So I added the (void) to please gcc.
But, you are right, removing all uses of 'pdev' is just fine for gcc and
the warning I wanted to avoid just does not exist :(
CJ
