On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 01:20:16) > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54) > > > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19) > > > > > > > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1 > > > > > > > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with > > > > > > > niggly little warnings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the last set. Clock is clean after this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the > > > > > > clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again. > > > > > > > > > > One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors, > > > > > maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds > > > > > *locally*. > > > > > > > > > > This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline) > > > > > level. That's kinda the point of W=1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile? > > > > > > That would circumvent the point of W=1. Level-1 warnings are deemed, > > > and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests > > > over". In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time, > > > he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'. > > > > > > W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and > > > subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new > > > ones. > > > > > > > Why should I install a land mine for others to trip over? Won't that > > just take them more time because they won't know to compile with W=1 and > > then will have to go for another round of review while I push back on > > them submitting new warnings? > > The alternative is to not worry about it and review the slow drip of > fixes that will occur as a result. The issues I just fixed were built > up over years. They won't get to that level again. > > In my mind contributors should be compiling their submissions with W=1 > enabled by default. I'm fairly sure the auto-builders do this now. > > Once W=1 warnings are down to an acceptable level in the kernel as a > whole, we can provide some guidance in SubmittingPatches (or similar) > on how to enable them (hint: you add "W=1" on the compile line). > > Enabling W=1 in the default build will only serve to annoy Linus IMHO. > If he wants them to be enabled by default, they wouldn't be W=1 in the > first place, they'd be W=0 which *is* the default build. Just to add real quick - my advice is to enable them for yourself and send back any issues along with your normal review. A W=1 issue is no different to a semantic or coding style one. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
