From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA065C3F2CD for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:46:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E2E21556 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:46:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 70E2E21556 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D2F0D6B0003; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 05:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CE04E6B0005; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 05:46:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C1BA06B0007; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 05:46:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0134.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.134]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDF66B0003 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 05:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8A940FB for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:46:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76560978564.02.juice38_179ddb079f508 X-HE-Tag: juice38_179ddb079f508 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3212 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf39.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:46:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F47731B; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09CC03F6C4; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 02:45:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Make mem_cgroup_id_get_many dependent on MMU and MEMCG_SWAP To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton References: <20200304142348.48167-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> <20200304165336.GO16139@dhcp22.suse.cz> <8c489836-b824-184e-7cfe-25e55ab73000@arm.com> <20200305100023.GR16139@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Vincenzo Frascino Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:46:21 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200305100023.GR16139@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Michal, On 3/5/20 10:00 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 05-03-20 09:49:23, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> On 3/4/20 4:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Wed 04-03-20 14:23:48, Vincenzo Frascino wrote: >>>> mem_cgroup_id_get_many() is currently used only when MMU or MEMCG_SW= AP >>>> configuration options are enabled. Having them disabled triggers the >>>> following warning at compile time: >>>> >>>> linux/mm/memcontrol.c:4797:13: warning: =E2=80=98mem_cgroup_id_get_m= any=E2=80=99 defined >>>> but not used [-Wunused-function] >>>> static void mem_cgroup_id_get_many(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, unsign= ed >>>> int n) >>>> >>>> Make mem_cgroup_id_get_many() dependent on MMU and MEMCG_SWAP to add= ress >>>> the issue. >>> >>> A similar patch has been proposed recently >>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/87fthjh2ib.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.c= om. >>> The conclusion was that the warning is not really worth adding code. >>> >> >> Thank you for pointing this out, I was not aware of it. I understand t= hat you >> are against "#ifdeffery" in this case, but isn't it the case of adding= at least >> __maybe_unused? This would prevent people from reporting it over and o= ver again >> and you to have to push them back :) Let me know what do you think, in= case I am >> happy to change my patch accordingly. >=20 > We have discussed __maybe_unused in the email thread as well. I am not = a > great fan of that as mentioed there. >=20 I am aware of this. I was just exploring if there was a possibility of addressing the warning, since if we leave all the warnings in scenarios l= ike randconfig can cause confusion in between real and non real issues. Is there anything we can do? --=20 Regards, Vincenzo