On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:21:31PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 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?
Sure, go with __maybe_unused.