On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:52:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 20:30, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:52:16AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:50 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 18:42, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > As the warnings do not appear to have a high signal to noise ratio and
> >> > > the source level silencing options are not sustainable, disable the
> >> > > warnings unconditionally, as they will be enabled with -Wenum-conversion
> >> > > and are supported in all versions of clang that can build the kernel.
> >> >
> >> > I took a look at a sample of warnings in an allmodconfig build
> >> > and found a number that need attention. I would much prefer to
> >> > leave these turned on at the W=1 level and only disable them
> >> > at the default warning level.
> >>
> >> Sounds like these new diagnostics are very noisy. 0day bot sends
> >> people reports at W=1. Perhaps W=2?
>
> It feels like this is not a great reason for moving it to W=2
> instead of W=1, but W=2 is still better than always disabling
> it I think.
>
> Specifically, the 0day bot warns for newly added W=1 warnings
> but not for preexisting ones, and I think there are other warnings
> at the W=1 level that are similarly noisy to this one.
>
> > A number of subsystems test with W=1 as well and while opting into W=1
> > means that you are potentially asking for new warnings across newer
> > compiler releases, a warning with this number of instances is going to
> > cause a lot of issues (I think of netdev for example).
>
> I only see a handful of warnings in net (devlink, bpf) and
> drivers/net (ethernet/{3com,amd8111e,funeth,hns,idpf,jme,mlx4} and
> wireless/{iwlwifi,mt76,rtw88,rtw89}).
>
> These are also some of the ones that I think need a closer look.
Fair enough, I have sent v2 that just moves these warnings to W=1.
Cheers,
Nathan
