On 2019/6/20 17:29, Yue Hu wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 17:22:48 +0800 > Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2019/6/20 16:32, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> Hi Yue, >>> >>> On 2019/6/20 16:30, Yue Hu wrote: >>>> From: Yue Hu <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> erofs_xattr_security_handler is already marked __maybe_unused, no need >>>> to add CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY condition. >> >> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY is used as a control switch of erofs security labels >> feature, but __maybe_unused is to avoid unneeded compiler warning on unused >> variable, so I think we can't remove it. > > However, erofs_xattr_security_handler will not unused under > CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY > condition, right?
Yes, we will referred it in erofs_xattr_handlers anyway, so, maybe we can remove __maybe_unused instead? Thanks, > > Thx. > >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c | 2 -- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c >>>> index df40654..06024ac 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/erofs/xattr.c >>>> @@ -499,13 +499,11 @@ static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct >>>> xattr_handler *handler, >>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_SECURITY >>>> const struct xattr_handler __maybe_unused erofs_xattr_security_handler = { >>>> .prefix = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX, >>>> .flags = EROFS_XATTR_INDEX_SECURITY, >>>> .get = erofs_xattr_generic_get, >>>> }; >>>> -#endif >>> >>> Thanks for your patch. >>> >>> In that case...erofs_xattr_security_handler could be compiled into .rodata >>> section? >>> I am not sure... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gao Xiang >>> >>>> >>>> const struct xattr_handler *erofs_xattr_handlers[] = { >>>> &erofs_xattr_user_handler, >>>> >>> . >>> > > . >
