Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken
From: Borislav Petkov
Date: Wed Dec 05 2012 - 16:12:40 EST
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:57:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:47:49 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > And yes btw we should turn this option on in -next, and get these sort of
> > things out of the tree for good. More importantly it'll mean anyone
> > adding another one gets a whine on the spot.
> While I appreciate your confidence, I don't notice quite a few new
> warnings (because there are so many of them already :-(). Is there some
> reason to not turn this on in our "normal" builds? Does it produce many
> false positives?
Yes, it produces a huge number of warnings which need weeding out (some
of them are false positives and some of them are simply unfixable due to
design decisions in the kernel, etc, etc):
$ make W=123 drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.o 2> w.log
make: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make: Nothing to be done for `relocs'.
$ wc w.log
2305 11202 168011 w.log
This is 2305 lines only for one compilation unit.
So if one enables all additional warning levels (this is what "W=123"
does) your build logs will be huge.
> What compiler version is required?
Works on all compilers by checking for supported -W options - see
> I also currently don't carry patches that only ever appear in
> linux-next (well, not intentionally anyway). I assume it would require
> a patch to the Makefile(s) to turn this on.
So ideally it would be if someone would build with "W=123" and track all
new warnings appearing with each new patch in linux-next and nag the
patch author to fix it before it hits mainline. This would require a
moderate level of scripting and experimenting though. The advantage is
that with something like that we'll be able to use all -W code checking
methods implemented gcc on our code and let the compiler possibly catch
We simply need someone not lazy enough to write that tracking and
nagging bit :).
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/