On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > The next question is, how do we keep it W=1 clean going forward? > > My plan was to fix them all, then move each warning to W=0. Some history: - Starting with v5.8-rc1: 18867 - 2020-07-01: 18089 - 2020-07-07: 17288 - 2020-07-17: 15762 - 2020-07-20: 15724 - 2020-07-23: 15116 - 2020-08-12: 15184 - 2020-10-19: 10909 - 2020-11-04: 9385 - 2021-01-04: 5478 - 2021-01-12 4749 - 2021-01-29 4911 - 2021-04-07 3594 - 2021-05-20 2938 - 2021-07-01 2587 - 2023-02-10 2587 - 2023-08-22 1650 > Arnd recently submitted a set doing just that for a bunch of them. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230811140327.3754597-1-arnd@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I like to think a bunch of this is built on top of my previous efforts. > > GPU is a particularly tricky though - the warnings seem to come in faster > than I can squash them. Maybe the maintainers can find a way to test > new patches on merge? > > > Most people don't use W=1 because it's too noisy, so it's a bit of a > > catch-22. > > > > In i915, we enable a lot of W=1 warnings using subdir-ccflags-y in our > > Makefile. For CI/developer use we also enable kernel-doc warnings by > > default. > > > > Should we start enabling some of those warning flags in drm/Makefile to > > to keep the entire subsystem warning free? > > That would we awesome! We'd just need buy-in. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
