On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:48:37 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +++ a/mm/memory.c > > @@ -1455,7 +1455,7 @@ static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_ > > pte_t *pte; > > int err; > > struct page *pmd_page; > > - spinlock_t *ptl; > > + spinlock_t *ptl = ptl; /* Suppress gcc warning */ > > > > pte = (mm == &init_mm) ? > > pte_alloc_kernel(pmd, addr) : > > _ > > > > Perhaps we should have some kind definition helper. > > #define suppress_unused(x) x = x > > spinlock_t *suppress_unused(ptl); > > Perhaps? I think so. It makes it clear what's happening and it allows us to change the implementation later on if the present trick stops working in later gcc. It also allows people to suppress the suppression (some have expressed concern that it can hide real bugs). But I lost (or didn't pursue) the bunfight^Wdiscussion last time this came around. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
