Re: [PATCH 00/21] [Set 2] Rid W=1 warnings from Clock

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 01:20:16)
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54)
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19)
> > > > > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
> > > > > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
> > > > > niggly little warnings.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the last set.  Clock is clean after this.
> > > > 
> > > > Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the
> > > > clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again.
> > > 
> > > One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors,
> > > maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds
> > > *locally*.
> > > 
> > > This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline)
> > > level.  That's kinda the point of W=1.
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile?
> 
> That would circumvent the point of W=1.  Level-1 warnings are deemed,
> and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests
> over".  In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time,
> he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'.
> 
> W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and
> subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new
> ones.
> 

Why should I install a land mine for others to trip over? Won't that
just take them more time because they won't know to compile with W=1 and
then will have to go for another round of review while I push back on
them submitting new warnings?