On Mon. 25 Apr 2022 at 17:49, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:42 AM Vincent MAILHOL > <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon. 25 Apr 2022 at 15:50, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 8:17 AM Vincent MAILHOL> <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > When I run W=2, I want to only see the warnings of the file I am > > > > working on. So I find it useful to fix the W=2 warnings which > > > > show up when building other files to not get spammed by > > > > irrelevant issues and to simplify the triage. > > > > > > > > My initial message lacked the rationale. I will add additional > > > > explanations in the v2 of this patch. > > > > > > I agree this is worth fixing if we want to make W=2 have any meaning at all. > > > > > > Your approach is probably fine. We could try to improve this by comparing > > > against the list from include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h instead of the i386 > > > list. I suppose that would involve rewriting the script into a simpler one, > > > but I'm not sure if anyone has an interest in working on this. > > > > If someone wants to do it, great, but I do not have the > > confidence to do it myself so I hope you will forgive me for > > taking a pass here. > > Sure, no worries. > > > Another alternative I considered was to only call > > checksyscalls.sh when doing a 'make all'. This way, we keep the > > warning but people won’t be spammed when building sub projects > > because the script would not be executed. > > Right, I like that as well, one less thing to be done for every > iterative make as well. The syscall table really doesn't change > all that much that this needs to be run by most developers. I send a patch in a new thread to only call the script once: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220426155229.436681-1-mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u If this new patch gets rejected, then I will go back to the -Wno-unused-macros approach. Yours sincerely, Vincent Mailhol
