On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:26:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:24:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:12:21AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > On 25/08/20 10:03, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > > On 25/08/20 09:26, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > > >>> On 24/08/20 16:39, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >>> > Compilation of almost each file ends up with > > > >>> > > > > >>> > In file included from .../include/linux/energy_model.h:10, > > > >>> > from .../include/linux/device.h:16, > > > >>> > from .../drivers/spi/spi.c:8: > > > >>> > .../include/linux/sched/topology.h:30:27: warning: > > > >>> > ‘SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK’ defined but not used > > > >>> > [-Wunused-const-variable=] > > > >>> > 30 | static const unsigned int SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK = > > > >>> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >>> > ... > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Make compiler happy by annotating the static constants with > > > >>> > __maybwe_unused. > > > > > > > Sorry, that's what I get for trying to be too succinct; what I tried to > > > > say > > > > was that SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK should very much be used for SMP. If > > > > the > > > > build is !SMP, it shouldn't even be defined, IOW I'm perplexed as to > > > > where > > > > this is coming from. > > > > > > So I see how having this as a constvar rather than a constexpr is somewhat > > > daft (we get an instance per compilation unit), but none of my compilers > > > seem to complain (even with W=1). AFAIA the kernelbot didn't catch any of > > > it either.
And even without compiler or any other analyzer / bot I can 100% sure tell that spi.c does *not* use that symbol. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
