On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:50:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 29 September 2014 10:23:25 Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > How about if I keep iterating this series? It seems like most failures > > can be reproduced by doing ARM defconfig and allmodconfig builds, so > > I'll do those and fix up any issues I find. Hopefully I can squash all > > these before 3.18-rc1, then we can take it into linux-next early for > > 3.19? In the meantime perhaps I can work with Olof to get a branch with > > these patches tested on his builder? And perhaps on the 0-day builder in > > addition? > > Yes, definitely! > > Note that I saw a lot of problems only in randconfig build tests but > not in any of the default configurations. I'll send you the fixup patch > soon so you can integrate that in your series. One of the things I've seen a lot is warnings about volatile being ignored. This is caused by my latest series dropping the volatile keyword for the I/O accessors. The rationale being that use of volatile should be an implementation detail of the accessors rather than the function signature. Unfortunately there seems to be a *lot* of code in the kernel that uses volatile where it probably doesn't make sense. In fact all the warnings that I've been getting are from code that uses I/O accessors on the I/O memory, hence shouldn't have to worry about volatile. See also Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt. Given the massive amount of changes needed to remove these warnings, is it better to just keep the volatile keyword even if it's clearly wrong in the context of the I/O accessors? Or should we bite the bullet and remove all the wrong uses while at it? I suppose if we decide to remove them we can always make that a separate patch series. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpqK_DNu4m0N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
