On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:20:23 -0700 Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > That said, I have one complaint: this type of warning is reported at > > W=2 *but* W=2 output is heavily polluted, mostly due to a false > > positive on linux/bits.h's GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(). Under the current > > situation, the relevant warings become invisible with all the > > flooding. > > I tried to send a patch to silence a huge chunk of the W=2 spam in [1] > > but it got rejected. I am sorry but even with the best intent, I might > > repeat a similar mistake in the future. The W=2 is just not usable. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220426161658.437466-1-mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Yes, having -Wmaybe-uninitialized in W=2 is unfortunate because these > types of mistakes will continue to happen. I have been fighting this for > a while and so has Dan Carpenter, who started a thread about it a couple > of months ago but it doesn't seem like it really went anywhere: > > https://lore.kernel.org/20220506091338.GE4031@kadam/ FWIW it's reported by clang and was in fact reported in the netdev patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220720081034.3277385-19-mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ DaveM must have not looked before pulling :S
