Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Date: Fri Sep 13 2019 - 09:55:06 EST
Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:56:30 -0400
Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> It's easy enough to move the kernel-doc warnings out from under W=1. I only
> out them there to avoid overwhelming us with new warnings. If they're
> mostly fixed now, let's make checking them the default.
Didn't try doing it kernelwide, but for media we do use W=1 by default,
on our CI instance.
There's a few warnings at EDAC, but they all seem easy enough to be
So, from my side, I'm all to make W=1 default.
> On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 16:01 Bart Van Assche, <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 9/12/19 8:34 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:31 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > >> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > >>> * The patch must compile without warnings (make C=1
> > CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__")
> > >>> and does not incur any zeroday test robot complaints.
> > >>
> > >> How about adding W=1 to that make command?
> > >
> > > That's rather too compiler version dependent and new
> > > warnings frequently get introduced by new compiler versions.
> > I've never observed this myself. If a new compiler warning is added to
> > gcc and if it produces warnings that are not useful for kernel code
> > usually Linus or someone else is quick to suppress that warning.
> > Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the formatting of kernel-doc
> > headers is checked only if W=1 is passed to make.
> > Bart.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> > Ksummit-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss