Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-12 01:20:16) > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-02-11 13:10:54) > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > Quoting Lee Jones (2021-01-26 04:45:19) > > > > > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1 > > > > > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with > > > > > niggly little warnings. > > > > > > > > > > This is the last set. Clock is clean after this. > > > > > > > > Is it possible to slam in some patch that makes W=1 the default for the > > > > clk directory? I'm trying to avoid seeing this patch series again. > > > > > > One of my main goals of this project is that everyone (contributors, > > > maintainers auto-builder robots etc) will be enabling W=1 builds > > > *locally*. > > > > > > This isn't something you'll want to do at a global (i.e. in Mainline) > > > level. That's kinda the point of W=1. > > > > > > > Agreed, but is it possible to pass W=1 in the drivers/clk/Makefile? > > That would circumvent the point of W=1. Level-1 warnings are deemed, > and I'm paraphrasing/making this up "not worth rejecting pull-requests > over". In contrast, if Linus catches any W=0 warnings at pull-time, > he will reject the pull-request as 'untested'. > > W=1 is defiantly something you'll want to enable locally though, and > subsequently push back on contributors submitting code adding new > ones. > Why should I install a land mine for others to trip over? Won't that just take them more time because they won't know to compile with W=1 and then will have to go for another round of review while I push back on them submitting new warnings?
