On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:06:27PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: >> Well, the whole series of patches that I made definitely went too far >> - only the first 5 out of about 30 have been posted, but if we can >> make some progress on generating fewer warnings out of the include >> files, I think it would be helpful. > > Helpful for what? Those are W=2 warnings which are disabled in the > default build. It is helpful for using the warnings to look for problems or even just risks. >> The macros can serve a useful purpose, but they should not be widely >> used. When to use them is definitely a judgement call. If the macros >> are accepted, it may be worth adding a checkpatch.pl warning for >> adding a DIAG_*IGNORE macro. > > Right, so add the macros and tell people *not* to use them. That won't > fly. Right now the number of warnings generated when using W=2 simply tells people to never use W=2. That severely limits the value of a useful tool. A checkpatch warning doesn't mean to never do that, just that it needs a critical look and justification. That is certainly true of every patch I made that uses those macros. -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
