Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][Patch 3/5] Per-task delay accounting: Sync block I/O delays

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 22:23 +0000, Shailabh Nagar wrote:
> 
> +       if (-EIOCBQUEUED == ret) {
> +               __attribute__((unused)) struct timespec start, end;
> +

Those "unused" things suck.  They're really ugly.

Doesn't making your delay functions into static inlines make the unused
warnings go away?

-- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][Patch 3/5] Per-task delay accounting: Sync block I/O delays
  - From: Shailabh Nagar <[email protected]>

References:
- [RFC][Patch 0/5] Per-task delay accounting
  - From: Shailabh Nagar <[email protected]>
- [RFC][Patch 3/5] Per-task delay accounting: Sync block I/O delays
  - From: Shailabh Nagar <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: pcibus_to_node value when no pxm info is present for the pci bus
Next by Date: Re: [RFC]add ACPI hooks for IDE suspend/resume
Previous by thread: [RFC][Patch 3/5] Per-task delay accounting: Sync block I/O delays
Next by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][Patch 3/5] Per-task delay accounting: Sync block I/O delays
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]