On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:20:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:44 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 04:09:43PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:12 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is a movement to try to make more and more of /drivers W=1
> > > > clean. But it will only stay clean if new warnings are quickly
> > > > detected and fixed, ideally by the developer adding the new code.
>
> Nice, I think everyone agrees that this is a good goal.
>
> > > > To allow subdirectories to sign up to being W=1 clean for a given
> > > > definition of W=1, export the current set of additional compile flags
> > > > using the symbol KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930. Subdirectory Makefiles can
> > > > then use:
> > > >
> > > > subdir-ccflags-y := $(KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930)
> > > >
> > > > To indicate they want to W=1 warnings as defined on 20200930.
> > > >
> > > > Additional warnings can be added to the W=1 definition. This will not
> > > > affect KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930 and hence no additional warnings will
> > > > start appearing unless W=1 is actually added to the command
> > > > line. Developers can then take their time to fix any new W=1 warnings,
> > > > and then update to the latest KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_<DATESTAMP> symbol.
> > >
> > > I'm not a fan of this approach. Are DATESTAMP configs just going to
> > > keep being added? Is it going to complicate isolating the issue from a
> > > randconfig build? If we want more things to build warning-free at
> > > W=1, then why don't we start moving warnings from W=1 into the
> > > default, until this is no W=1 left? That way we're cutting down on
> > > the kernel's configuration combinatorial explosion, rather than adding
> > > to it?
>
> I'm also a little sceptical about the datestamp.
Hi Arnd
Any suggestions for an alternative?
> It won't change with the configuration, but it will change with the
> specific compiler version. When you enable a warning in a
> particular driver or directory, this may have different effects
> on one compiler compared to another: clang and gcc sometimes
> differ in their interpretation of which specific forms of an expression
> to warn about or not, and any multiplexing options like -Wextra
> or -Wformat may turn on additional warnings in later releases.
How do we deal with this at the moment? Or will -Wextra and -Wformat
never get moved into the default?
> I think the two approaches are orthogonal, and I would like to
> see both happening as much as possible:
>
> - any warning flag in the W=1 set (including many things implied
> by -Wextra that have or should have their own flags) that
> only causes a few lines of output should just be enabled by
> default after we address the warnings
Is there currently any simple way to get statistics about how many
actual warnings there are per warnings flag in W=1? W=1 on the tree as
a whole does not look good, but maybe there is some low hanging fruit
and we can quickly promote some from W=1 to default?
> - Code with maintainers that care should have a way to enable
> the entire W=1 set per directory or per file after addressing all
> the warnings they do see, with new flags only getting added to
> W=1 when they don't cause regressions.
Yes, this is what i'm trying to push forward here. I don't
particularly care how it happen, so if somebody comes up with a
generally acceptable idea, i will go away and implement it.
> > People generally don't care about the tree as a whole. They care about
> > their own corner. The idea of fixing one warning thought the whole
> > tree is 'slicing and dicing' the kernel the wrong way. As we have seen
> > with the recent work with W=1, the more natural way to slice/dice the
> > kernel is by subdirectories.
>
> I do care about the tree as a whole, and I'm particularly interested in
> having -Wmissing-declarations/-Wmissing-prototypes enabled globally
> at some point in the future.
I know you care. But you are vastly out numbered by developers who
care about their own little corner. Which is why i said 'generally'.
We definitely should come at the problem from both directions, but i
guess we can make more progress with tools for the large number of
developers each in their own corner, than tools for the few who work
tree wide.
Andrew
