* Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's the full list of warnings for allmod64:And that comes from tip:locking/core, but those warnings do not show
make bzImage:
include/linux/blkdev.h:624:26: warning: switch condition has boolean value [-Wswitch-bool]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:28:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:33:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_unlock? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:28:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:33:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_unlock? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:28:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:33:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_unlock? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:28:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
./arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:33:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pv_queued_spin_unlock? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
up with GCC 4.9.2: so it's either a GCC 5.0.1 bug, or we missed
something with the WIP queued pv spinlocks changes that newer GCC is
able to notice.
Thanks,
Ingo