On Tue, 15 Aug 2023, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 08:35:40PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 8:23 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > As an alternative, of course, we could consider turning off those >> > specific warnings entirely for normal builds. >> >> It could be nice to get to enforce warning-free builds as soon as possible. >> >> Perhaps we could move those to a `W=1`-like group and clean them over >> time instead? Or do we have that already? > > I think the problem is that we don't run kernel-doc by default. Instead, > it's only run for W=1 (and higher) builds. That's why Carlos doesn't > see the problems he is introducing in his own builds. Of course, if > AMD required building with W=1 then they'd see these problems earlier > in their own testing. Apparently they don't. > > Is it time to just run kernel-doc by default? There aren't _that_ > many kernel-doc warnings now. Not compared to how they used to be. > And enabling them for everyone means that new ones won't sneak in. > I haven't timed how much extra time kernel-doc adds to a build. > Perhaps that's infeasible. Personally, I believe it's easier to get at a warning free build (both compiler W=1 warnings as well as kernel-doc) by doing it driver and subsystem at a time, instead of, say, one warning at a time across the entire kernel. It's just too much of a burden to fix the entire kernel to enable a warning across the board. To that end, the i915 Makefile enables a lot more warnings than the defaults, and the developers and CI run the compiler and kernel-doc with -Werror. No new warnings get introduced. What I'd hope for is build system support to enable W=1 compiler/kernel-doc warnings for a subdir with a few lines at most, instead of duplicating and copy-pasting tens of lines from scripts/Makefile.extrawarn like we have to do now. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
