Hi!
> > Do we really want developers treat warnings as errors? When the code
> > is okay but some random version of gcc dislikes it...
> >
> > Plus, there's question of stable. We already get ton of churn there
> > ("this fixes random warning"). WERROR will only encourage that...
>
> I will not be backporting this patch to older stable kernels, but I
> _want_ to see stable builds build with no warnings. When we add
> warnings, they are almost always things we need to fix up properly.
Well, everyone _wants_ to see clean builds... unless the price is too
high.
> Over time, I have worked to reduce the number of build warnings in older
> stable kernels. For newer versions of gcc, sometimes that is
> impossible, but we are close...
You clearly can't backport this patch, but for 5.16-stable, you'll
have it in, and now warnings are same as errors... and I don't believe
that's good idea for stable.
Best regards,
Pavel
--
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
