On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:50 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ...and which version is that? The build robot report just says ia64 > > without specifying any details about what compiler was running, etc: > > Actually, you should find it if you follow the links to the config. > > We have the compiler version saved in the config file partly exactly > for reasons like that. > > HOWEVER. > > If it's *this* report: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230510165934.5Zgh4%25lkp@xxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > then don't even worry about it. > > That's not even a compiler warning - that "ignoring unreachable code" > is from smatch. > > So if *that* single line of > > fs/xfs/scrub/fscounters.c:459 xchk_fscounters() warn: ignoring > unreachable code. > > was all this was about, then there are no worries with that pull request. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. > Those extra warnings (some of them compiler warnings enabled with W=2 > for extra warnings, some from smatch) are not a cause for worry. They > are janitorial. Which is a pretty good definition of "harmless warning". > I thought you had an actual failed build report due to some warning. > Those we *do* need to fix, exactly because they will affect other > peoples ability to do basic sanity testing. In retrospect, next time you might first inquire as to what the issue being referred to is. If you are going to assume anything, assume good intentions and that the engineer sending the pull request has done what they have done for a good reason. Once you know what that reason is you've got the right context to then educate the OP about the correct procedure in an amicable manner. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
