Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] lockdep: Mark chain_hlock_class_idx() with __maybe_unused

[Ingo Molnar]

* Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 11:21:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 11:55:08AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 07:08:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > When chain_hlock_class_idx() is unused, it prevents kernel builds with clang,
> > > > `make W=1` and CONFIG_WERROR=y:
> > > > 
> > > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:435:28: error: unused function 'chain_hlock_class_idx' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
> > > > 
> > > > Fix this by marking it with __maybe_unused.
> > > > 
> > > > See also commit 6863f5643dd7 ("kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static
> > > > inline functions for W=1 build").
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This looks fine to me, so I'm going to queue it, but could you do me
> > > favor if you could share the exact configs that would make
> > > chain_hlock_class_idx() an unused fuction in kernel/locking/lockdep.c ?
> > 
> > I might harvest this when I come from vacations (some around mid-January).
> > 
> 
> After some investigation myself, it turns out that
> chain_hlock_class_idx() is defined outside "#ifdef CONFIG_PROVING_LOCK",
> but only used under CONFIG_PROVING_LOCK=y, hence the unused warning.
> 
> TBH, I feel we should really clean-up/consolidate those "#ifdef" to make
> internal definition/usage more clear. But nothing blocks this patch, it
> fixes a real issue, I will add the CONFIG_PROVING_LOCK part in the
> commit log. Thanks!

So now that we have:

   343060092585 lockdep: Move lockdep_assert_locked() under #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING

Do we really need:

   8148fa2e022b lockdep: Mark chain_hlock_class_idx() with __maybe_unused

As it would hide the problem fixed by 343060092585?

__maybe_unused annotations are almost always canaries of something 
messy being hidden.

Thanks,

	Ingo