On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:53:01AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 4/11/2016 9:18 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >So I tried and it warns about the unused variable tickless_load, so I
> >would need two scattered ifdeffery in the function:
> >
> >@@ -4528,7 +4529,9 @@ decay_load_missed(unsigned long load, unsigned long
> >missed_updates, int idx)
> > static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> > unsigned long pending_updates)
> > {
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > unsigned long tickless_load = this_rq->cpu_load[0];
> >+#endif
>
> Just move the initialization down to the first use, as a regular
> assignment, and add __maybe_unused to the declaration, and the compiler
> will then keep quiet (see Documentation/CodingStyle).
>
> I have no comment on which of the approaches looks better overall,
> but I think using __maybe_unused definitely improves this approach.
I thought about it yeah. I usually avoid __maybe_unused because it's often
a bad sign concerning the code layout.
Now in this precise case I wouldn't mind though. Peter what's your opinion?
Thanks.
