On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:20:50PM +0800, AmÃrico Wang wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:35:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >On Monday 28 February 2011, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >> My intention was not to have multiple levels of warnings because then > >> you have to go and enable the different levels and have to remember > >> which level you used last, etc, etc. > > > >I wasn't suggesting more than two, so the two would have very distinct > >definitions: > > > >W=1: Warnings that we would like to fix all over the tree, patches to > > remove these are always welcome and you can build the entire kernel > > with it. Once they are all fixed, we can make the warnings the default. > > > >W=2: Warnings that we know we don't always want to fix, meant for what > > you describe here -- you build a single file and decide what to > > do based on common sense. > > > > Right, this makes sense. Borislav, could you implement this? Yeah, I could try to come up with a sensible choice for mutual-exclusive sets of -W.. options. Any preferences? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- 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
