Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator

From: Manfred Spraul (manfred@colorfullife.com)
Date: Sat Jul 08 2000 - 10:27:33 EST

Next message: Andreas Dilger: "Re: Kernel 2.2.14 OOM killer strikes."
Previous message: Juhana Sadeharju: "Re: [linux-audio-dev] lowish-latency patch and toolchain"
In reply to: Khimenko Victor: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Khimenko Victor wrote:
>
> In <E13AsCy-0005CO-00@g212.hadiko.de> Olaf Titz (olaf@bigred.inka.de) wrote:
> > PS. Why does gcc (2.95.2) say "variable defined but not used" for
> > cipe_ntoalock when I make it static?
>
> In UP kernel, right ? It's correct: spin lock operations are nop's in case
> of UP kernel...
>
That was my first guess too, but check <linux/spinlock.h>

#define spin_lock(lock) \
(void) (lock) /* Not "unused variable". */

Perhaps some gcc version are too clever?

-- Manfred

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andreas Dilger: "Re: Kernel 2.2.14 OOM killer strikes."
Previous message: Juhana Sadeharju: "Re: [linux-audio-dev] lowish-latency patch and toolchain"
In reply to: Khimenko Victor: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:09 EST