On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:12:45 +0100 Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:57:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:47:49 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > And yes btw we should turn this option on in -next, and get these sort of > > > things out of the tree for good. More importantly it'll mean anyone > > > adding another one gets a whine on the spot. > > > > While I appreciate your confidence, I don't notice quite a few new > > warnings (because there are so many of them already :-(). Is there some > > reason to not turn this on in our "normal" builds? Does it produce many > > false positives? > > Yes, it produces a huge number of warnings which need weeding out (some > of them are false positives and some of them are simply unfixable due to > design decisions in the kernel, etc, etc): > > $ make W=123 drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.o 2> w.log I was just talking about the always true/always false stuff ! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
