On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:11:34PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:53:37AM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If it's really not used then why would marking it inline help out any?
> >> > Shouldn't we just delete the function instead?
> >> >
> >> As far as I can see, its been called recursively and also from
> >> sysfs_add_one. Am I missing anything?
> >
> > If so, then what is the compiler warning that is being generated that
> > you are trying to resolve?
> >
> 
> Yes - its really confusing. Actually, sysfs_pathname is called from
> WARN(). So - when #ifndef WARN is false, then we're having that
> problem and sysfs_pathname isn't used that time. So, the proposed
> patch isn't the correct fix. Maybe, splitting up the WARN message and
> calling sysfs_pathname is the correct one. Am I right?

perhaps, yes, that might be correct, but as almost no one builds with
WARN not enabled, is this a real issue?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/