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

[Lee Jones]

On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> 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?

The alternative is to not worry about it and review the slow drip of
fixes that will occur as a result.  The issues I just fixed were built
up over years.  They won't get to that level again.

In my mind contributors should be compiling their submissions with W=1
enabled by default.  I'm fairly sure the auto-builders do this now.

Once W=1 warnings are down to an acceptable level in the kernel as a
whole, we can provide some guidance in SubmittingPatches (or similar)
on how to enable them (hint: you add "W=1" on the compile line).

Enabling W=1 in the default build will only serve to annoy Linus IMHO.
If he wants them to be enabled by default, they wouldn't be W=1 in the
first place, they'd be W=0 which *is* the default build.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog