On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, at 16:19, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 04:03:20PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Warning options are enabled and disabled in inconsistent ways and
>> inconsistent locations. Start rearranging those by moving all options
>> into Makefile.extrawarn.
>>
>> This should not change any behavior, but makes sure we can group them
>> in a way that ensures that each warning that got temporarily disabled
>> is turned back on at an appropriate W=1 level later on.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Makefile | 88 -------------------------------------
>> scripts/Makefile.extrawarn | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
>
> This shuffle seems reasonable to me. Would it make sense to rename the
> Makefile from Makefile.extrawarn to just Makefile.warn or
> Makefile.warnings? They are still "extra" warnings but to me, the
> meaning of the Makefile is changing so it seems reasonable to drop the
> "extra" part.
Renaming the file seems fine, but I'd much prefer to do that separately
if we decide to do it, otherwise rebasing my patches is going to
be even more painful.
Arnd
