Skip to contentSkip to conversation

__optional and __keep

PATCH In review Rusty Russell 2 participants 2 messages May 15, 2003 Sparse checker

lore
Share & tools
lore

Rusty Russell

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 __optional and __keep

Hi all!

Does anyone else find __attribute_used__ confusing, or is it just me? In the tradition of likely() and unlikely(), I think __optional and __keep are clearer.

Thoughts?
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.

Name: __keep and __optional attributes
Author: Rusty Russell
Status: Trivial

D: Renames __attribute_used to __keep, and introduces __optional.

include/linux/compiler.h +3 -2
diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .21892-linux-2.5.69-bk9/include/linux/compiler.h .21892-linux-2.5.69-bk9.updated/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -51,10 +51,11 @@
  * would be warned about except with attribute((unused)).
  */
 #if __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3 || __GNUC__ > 3
-#define __attribute_used__	__attribute__((__used__))
+#define __keep		__attribute__((__used__))
 #else
-#define __attribute_used__	__attribute__((__unused__))
+#define __keep		__attribute__((__unused__))
 #endif
+#define __optional	__attribute__((__unused__))
 
 /* This macro obfuscates arithmetic on a variable address so that gcc
    shouldn't recognize the original var, and make assumptions about it */
scripts/modpost.c +1 -1
diff -urpN --exclude TAGS -X /home/rusty/devel/kernel/kernel-patches/current-dontdiff --minimal .21892-linux-2.5.69-bk9/scripts/modpost.c .21892-linux-2.5.69-bk9.updated/scripts/modpost.c
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ add_depends(struct buffer *b, struct mod
 
 	buf_printf(b, "\n");
 	buf_printf(b, "static const char __module_depends[]\n");
-	buf_printf(b, "__attribute_used__\n");
+	buf_printf(b, "__keep\n");
 	buf_printf(b, "__attribute__((section(\".modinfo\"))) =\n");
 	buf_printf(b, "\"depends=");
 	for (s = mod->unres; s; s = s->next) {
#1 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines

Hi all!

Does anyone else find __attribute_used__ confusing, or is it just me? In the tradition of likely() and unlikely(), I think __optional and __keep are clearer.

Thoughts?
Rusty.
--

Yes, I thought that we had already hashed thru this one time. I'm fine with the current naming.

~Randy