Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 04:38:34 -0700
Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are there any users of swp_entry_t when CONFIG_SWAP is not defined?
Well there shouldn't be. Making accesses to swp_entry_t.val fail to
compile if !CONFIG_SWAP might be useful.
+/*
+ * A swap entry has to fit into a "unsigned long", as
+ * the entry is hidden in the "index" field of the
+ * swapper address space.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SWAP
typedef struct {
unsigned long val;
} swp_entry_t;
+#else
+typedef struct {
+ unsigned long val;
+} swp_entry_t __attribute__((__unused__));
+#endif
We have __attribute_used__, which hides a gcc oddity.
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- From: Con Kolivas
- Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- References:
- [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- From: Con Kolivas
- [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.17-rc3 -- SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] mm: cleanup swap unused warning
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
