On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:17:45 +0200 Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> wrote:
> Evaluating a macro argument only if certain configuration options > have been selected is confusing and error-prone. Hence always > evaluate the second argument of spin_lock_nested() and > spin_lock_nest_lock(). > > An intentional side effect of this patch is that it avoids that > the following warning is reported for netif_addr_lock_nested() > when building with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n and with W=1: > > ... > > --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h > +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h > @@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static inline void do_raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t > *lock) __releases(lock) > _raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, &(nest_lock)->dep_map); \ > } while (0) > #else > -# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) > _raw_spin_lock(lock) > -# define raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, nest_lock) _raw_spin_lock(lock) > +# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) \ > + ((void)(subclass), _raw_spin_lock(lock)) > +# define raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, nest_lock) \ > + ((void)(nest_lock), _raw_spin_lock(lock)) > #endif > Did you try converting these to static inline functions? That should squish the warning and makes the code nicer instead of nastier... -- 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/
