On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:45 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 Nice cleanups. I like this, and renaming the file (as a separate patch). -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
