[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] powerpc: Mark variable `cpumsr` as unused
Hi Mathieu, Christophe

Thanks for spotting and fixing this bug.

On 11/08/2018 05:25 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:09 AM Christophe Leroy <> wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 08:26 PM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> Add gcc attribute unused for `cpumsr` variable.
>>> Fix warnings treated as errors with W=1:
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c:231:16: error: variable ‘cpumsr’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c:296:16: error: variable ‘cpumsr’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Malaterre <>
>> I don't think this is the good way to fix that. This problem was
>> introduced by commit 5c784c8414fb ("powerpc/tm: Remove
>> msr_tm_active()"). That commit should be reverted and fixed.
> I see, it makes sense.
>> That commit should have removed the macro and kept the inline function.
> Breno, what do you think ?

Turning this macro into a function might cause the code to be more confused,
since all the other TM states bits are checked using a macro, for example:

MSR_TM_SUSPENDED Checks if the MSR has Suspended bits set
MSR_TM_TRANSACTIONAL Checks if the MSR has the transactional bits set
MSR_TM_RESV Checks if the MSR has the TM reserved bits set

That said, I understand that it makes sense to have an uniform way to check
for TM bits in MSR, thus having a MSR_TM_ACTIVE macro to check for the active
bits. Using a non-uniform function just to fix this warning seems to be an
overkill. Reverting the patch seems to bring back the old style, which is
having a macro and a function with the same name, where the function just
calls the macro.

Anyway, I think it might have other ways to fix warning, as I can think now:

1) Avoid setting cpumsr if CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM is not enabled

2) If !CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM, redefine MSR_TM_ACTIVE(x) to something
as (x & 0) instead of 0.

3) Avoid double definition of MSR_TM_ACTIVE, i.e, have the same definition
independent of PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM being set or not.

Anyway, I would like to try option 3), which is the hardest one to implement
and validate, but it seems to be the most correct option, once it checks for
a MSR bit configuration, and the caller should have the logic.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-08 14:59    [W:0.046 / U:7.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site