Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Specify -Werror when compiling KVM's selftests, there's zero reason to > let warnings sneak into the selftests. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > index af582d168621..c8efaaeb0885 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ LINUX_TOOL_ARCH_INCLUDE = $(top_srcdir)/tools/arch/x86/include > else > LINUX_TOOL_ARCH_INCLUDE = $(top_srcdir)/tools/arch/$(ARCH)/include > endif > -CFLAGS += -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wuninitialized -O2 -g -std=gnu99 \ > +CFLAGS += -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -Wuninitialized -O2 -g -std=gnu99 \ > -fno-stack-protector -fno-PIE -I$(LINUX_TOOL_INCLUDE) \ > -I$(LINUX_TOOL_ARCH_INCLUDE) -I$(LINUX_HDR_PATH) -Iinclude \ > -I$(<D) -Iinclude/$(UNAME_M) -I.. $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) $(KHDR_INCLUDES) "-Werror" in kvm-unit-tests is a constant source of pain as different GCC versions tend to produce different warnings. It's going to be even worse for selftests: e.g. bisecting an 'old' kernel on a system with somewhat 'newer' compiler and selftests don't even build. Personally, I'd prefer "-Werror" to be an acceptance criteria for upstream patches (e.g. if something produces warnings on Paolo's setup -- the patch doesn't get accepted) but not the hardcoded default in Makefile. -- Vitaly
