Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix unused variable warning on UP (was: Re: linux-next: tip tree build warning)

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 21:26, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 20:58, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 20:57 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 08:12, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > Today's linux-next build (powerpc allnoconfig) produced this warning:
>>> >
>>> > kernel/sched.c: In function 'wake_up_new_task':
>>> > kernel/sched.c:2631: warning: unused variable 'cpu'
>>> >
>>> > Introduced by commit fabf318e5e4bda0aca2b0d617b191884fda62703 ("sched:
>>> > Fix fork vs hotplug vs cpuset namespaces").
>>>
>>> And now we have it in 2.6.33-rc7, too...
>>> Patch below (FWIW, compile-tested on m68k with CONFIG_SMP=n only).
>>>
>>> ---
>>> From cbf4f334632ade9c5ed9b88728ec82af074e4ace Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:47:30 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] sched: Fix unused variable warning on UP
>>>
>>> Fix warning
>>>
>>> | kernel/sched.c:2650: warning: unused variable 'cpu'
>>>
>>> if CONFIG_SMP is not set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Âkernel/sched.c | Â Â3 ++-
>>> Â1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
>>> index 3a8fb30..c47561e 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
>>> @@ -2647,9 +2647,10 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct *p,
>>> unsigned long clone_flags)
>>> Â{
>>> Â Â Â unsigned long flags;
>>> Â Â Â struct rq *rq;
>>> - Â Â int cpu = get_cpu();
>>>
>>> Â#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>> + Â Â int cpu = get_cpu();
>>> +
>>> Â Â Â /*
>>> Â Â Â Â* Fork balancing, do it here and not earlier because:
>>> Â Â Â Â* Â- cpus_allowed can change in the fork path
>>
>> Which introduces a preempt imbalance... I like akpm's fix much better.
>
> Bummer, you're right. Sorry, that teaches me not to write patches
> after 2 days of FOSDEM ;-)

<trying to completely destroy my credibility>
Shouldn't put_cpu() take a (possibly dummy) `cpu' parameter, as
returned by get_cpu()?
</trying>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/