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=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,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 B3AACC47082 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 03:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E52610E7 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 03:34:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 41E52610E7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2761C6B0036; Sun, 30 May 2021 23:34:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2252E6B006E; Sun, 30 May 2021 23:34:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0EDB76B0070; Sun, 30 May 2021 23:34:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0068.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.68]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A896B0036 for ; Sun, 30 May 2021 23:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6585D824999B for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 03:34:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78200108532.03.893C737 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.187]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797A5C00CBD7 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 03:34:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Ftgl9125KzWq6W; Mon, 31 May 2021 11:29:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemm500004.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.219) by dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 31 May 2021 11:34:21 +0800 Received: from [10.174.177.91] (10.174.177.91) by dggpemm500004.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 31 May 2021 11:34:20 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/mmap_lock: fix warning when CONFIG_TRACING is not defined To: Matthew Wilcox CC: , , References: <20210531015527.49785-1-cuibixuan@huawei.com> From: Bixuan Cui Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 11:34:19 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.91] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.179) To dggpemm500004.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.219) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 797A5C00CBD7 Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of cuibixuan@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.187 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=cuibixuan@huawei.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: f9yhatb4rq8z6u6jsecewmn45dt8diyy X-HE-Tag: 1622432054-203324 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: On 2021/5/31 10:02, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> Fix the warning: [-Wunused-function] >> mm/mmap_lock.c:157:20: warning: =E2=80=98get_mm_memcg_path=E2=80=99 de= fined but not used >> static const char *get_mm_memcg_path(struct mm_struct *mm) >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > That seems like the wrong way to fix the warning. Why not put it > under an appropriate ifdef? It's better than me, I will send a new patch. Thanks Bixuan Cui >=20