On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, at 18:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:59:29AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:56 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c: release_output_lock();
>> >
>> > That said, the unused functions do look legit:
>> >
>> > grackle_set_stg() is a static function and the only call is under
>> > "#if 0".
>>
>> Time to remove it then? Or is it a bug that it's not called?
>> Otherwise the definition should be behind the same preprocessor guards
>> as the caller. Same for the below.
It would be nice to get rid of all warnings about unused
"static inline" functions and "static const" variables in .c
files. I think both these warnings got added at the W=1 level
for compilers that support them at some point, but are ignored
for normal builds without W=1 because they are too noisy.
Obviously, all compilers ignore unused inline functions and
const variables in header files regardless of the warning level.
> I don't really care whether we keep the warning or not.
>
> My real complaint is that the 0-day report fingered
> pci/controller/xilinx-xdma, which is completely unrelated, which is a
> waste of time.
I tried to figure this out but couldn't find the real reason either,
clearly there is something wrong with the reporting here, my best
guess would be that there is a spurious build failure elsewhere that
leads to this file sometimes getting flagged as a false-positive.
Arnd
