On 06/16/2012 02:17 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:48:26AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 06/15/2012 01:54 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:31:00AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 03:58:10PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:12:22AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:48:35AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: >>>>>>> In an average working day, 1-2 build errors will be caught and email >>>>>>> notified. I guess there will be more sparse warnings if it's turned >>>>>>> on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps the sparse warnings can be enabled, but only sent to the patch >>>>>>> author. If you and anyone else are interested, they could be sent to >>>>>>> some mailing list, too. One thing I'm sure is, we probably never want >>>>>>> to disturb the busy maintainers with these warnings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eventually I think we will want to set up a mailing list for this or >>>>>> we will start sending duplicate messages. >>>>> >>>>> Fair enough. How can we setup the mailing list? Once the list up, it >>>>> would be trivial for me to send sparse warnings out there. >>>> >>>> Rather than a mailing list, how about something like test.kernel.org for >>>> sparse warnings? >>> >>> It's much more trivial to send new build/sparse errors/warnings to a >>> list than to setup a website :-) As the errors come and go every day, >>> and they are mostly unstructured, it seems the mailing list would be a >>> more natural fit. People can search for known errors there and/or CC >>> fixes there. >>> >>> Anyway, we just sent an request for creating >>> >>> automated-warnings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> and you will let us know when it has been created?? > > Well, the request has been rejected anyway.. > >> Although I had just as soon use an existing list, like >> kernel-janitors or kernel-testers. > > From http://kernelnewbies.org/KernelJanitors : > > Some suggestions to kernel newbies: > > avoid fixing compiler warnings because the goal is to fix the > CAUSE of the warnings (which is usually not obvious), not just > to make the warnings go away > > Does that suggest the commit author be the best people to fix > warnings? The typical situation may be, the author is not aware of the > warnings at all: they are buried in the tedious output of make... It's a shame when a patch creates lots of warnings and they are ignored. I would suggest that the patch should not be merged. :) We should at least bring the warnings to the attention of the patch author. Sure, in some cases we (I) might make a patch that the author wouldn't want and would have better solutions for. That's OK. It happens often. It's part of how Linux development works. -- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
