On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:05PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Sam Ravnborg wrote: > >One can ignore or one can fix... > >I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch > >warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time > >complaining but failing to provide patches. > > > Sam - who expected more people to actually fix this stuff :-( > > Well, with due respect, it's a bit presumptuous to add a bunch of > warnings to the kernel build (due to more strict checking), and then get > annoyed when people aren't jumping up and fixing this stuff immediately. I did some testing and the new code does not emit warnings which were not emitted before. But previously you had to use less typical configurations to see them like HOTPLUG_CPU=y, HOTPLUG=n, gcc 3.3 > > There were no build complaints in 2.6.24 for my stuff (libata and > drivers/net) during my test builds, nor were there any for my 2.6.25-git > merge window pushes, nor were there any complaints when I last checked > Andrew's -mm tree. > > So from our perspective, you dumped a lot of work in our laps from out > of the blue, getting irritated at us along the way. > > Maybe we can resolve this in a more kinder, gentler, coordinated > fashion? :) It is the misinformation being spread that irritates me. Thousand of hours, no real bugs found etc. Anyway - that is all forgot tomorrow when we get the warning level down to zero. > > What could be done to prevent this sort of situation in the future? > Maybe add these checks to -mm, and then not push your strict checking > upstream until the build noise is reduced? The good thing about getting it upstream is the additional attention. If we do not get it down to acceptable levels I have no problems turning off the section mismatch in minline but keep it enabled in -mm. Sam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
