On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 10:43 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This is a upcoming change to clean up a new warning treewide. > > I am wondering if the change could be one mega patch (see below) or > > normal patch per file about 100 patches or somewhere half way by collecting > > early acks. > > Please break it up into one-patch-per-subsystem, like normal, and get it > merged that way. > > Sending us a patch, without even a diffstat to review, isn't going to > get you very far... Tom, If you're able to automate this cleanup, I suggest checking in a script that can be run on a directory. Then for each subsystem you can say in your commit "I ran scripts/fix_whatever.py on this subdir." Then others can help you drive the tree wide cleanup. Then we can enable -Wunreachable-code-break either by default, or W=2 right now might be a good idea. Ah, George (gbiv@, cc'ed), did an analysis recently of `-Wunreachable-code-loop-increment`, `-Wunreachable-code-break`, and `-Wunreachable-code-return` for Android userspace. From the review: ``` Spoilers: of these, it seems useful to turn on -Wunreachable-code-loop-increment and -Wunreachable-code-return by default for Android ... While these conventions about always having break arguably became obsolete when we enabled -Wfallthrough, my sample turned up zero potential bugs caught by this warning, and we'd need to put a lot of effort into getting a clean tree. So this warning doesn't seem to be worth it. ``` Looks like there's an order of magnitude of `-Wunreachable-code-break` than the other two. We probably should add all 3 to W=2 builds (wrapped in cc-option). I've filed https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1180 to follow up on. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
