On Wed, 05 Apr 2023, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 05 Apr 2023, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Apr 2023, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > Fixes the following W=1 kernel build warning(s): > >> >> > > >> >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scatterlist.c:62: warning: Function parameter or member 'size' not described in 'i915_refct_sgt_init' > >> >> > > >> >> > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > >> >> > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> > Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for the patches! > >> >> > >> >> Applied all but one of the drm/i915 patches to drm-intel-next or > >> >> drm-intel-gt-next depending on the area. There were a couple of issues > >> >> that I fixed while applying. There was a conflict with patch 5/19 > >> >> against drm-intel-gt-next so I left that one out. > >> > > >> > Thanks Jani. I'll rebase and see what's left. > >> > >> We also took notice and aim to track this more aggressively [1]. > > > > Thanks. > > > > I did clean-up all of the GPU warnings already a couple of years ago, > > but they seem to have crept back over time. It would be great if we > > could put some extra checks in place to prevent them in the future. > > We are pretty zealous about warnings in general in i915. We have a bunch > of extra warnings in our local Makefile and use -Werror in > development. Inspired by this series, we added kernel-doc check to the > build, and hope to add kernel-doc -Werror too once we're done. Sounds good that you're on it. At least in your part of GPU. kernel-doc warnings are surfaced by enabling W=1. > > My aim, albeit ambitious, is to clean-up all of the W=1 warnings in the > > kernel, then have them promoted to W=0, so they warn more loudly during > > development, thus keeping them from reappearing. > > I wish it was easier to do the equivalent of W=1 on a driver or Makefile > basis. I like to keep i915 clean, but I don't like to use W=1 because > there are just so many warnings currently. Well that's what I hope to improve (again). :) > The other alternative is fixing and moving extra warnings from W=1 to > W=0 one by one. Right, that's where I'd like to end up eventually. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
