On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 5:07 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/5/20 10:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:35 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva > > <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 5/5/20 09:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> I wonder why would we need to backport these changes to -stable... merely > >> because of the use of a new version of GCC? > > > > Yes, we usually backport trivial warning fixes to stable kernels to allow > > building those with any modern compiler version. > > > > OK. So, if you anticipate that this is going to happen, I can split up my > treewide patch into separate per-subsystem patches. I can replace the > treewide patch in my tree today, so the changes are reflected in tomorrow's > linux-next. I only needed a few patches to address all the warnings, so you don't need to split up the patch for this purpose, though it may be easier to get it merged anyway. I see now that Linus has already applied the same fix as part of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9d82973e032e2 It's just not yet in today's linux-next, but my patch is now obsolete. Linus, let me know if you would like me to Cc you on the other gcc-10 warning fixes I have and possibly apply some directly. I have patches for all gcc-10 and clang-10 warnings now, and am in the process of getting them out to the subsystem maintainers. Arnd
