On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Dave Jones wrote: > > Is it worth fixing these up, with diffs like the below ? Historically, when we fix up bugs like this, it causes more bugs than it fixes. It needs _really_ careful people, and people who really understand how C type rules work. Stuff that looks obvious often is not, and basing a large part of the patch on a compiler warning is a _very_ weak reason for something that is more than just syntactic. And the problem is, nobody can judge the patch from the diff. So it gets absolutely zero review, until the day when somebody notices that the unsigned version is a bug. I'd suggest that the rule should be: - if you can use -U30 and show all uses, so that people can actually look at the patch and see what it _causes_ (ie not just the "we change 'i' to 'unsigned'", but also the "this is where 'i' gets used, and 'unsigned' is right"), then we can apply it. - none of the patches go through a 'trivial' tree, or come from newbies that think this is a good way to get involved. Is it worth it at that point? I dunno. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
