On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree. > > > > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. > > > > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to > > <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and let me know why this patch should be > > applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be > > seen again. > > There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder > if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU > coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are > (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing > that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy. Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"? I want to fix "normal" build warnings, ones that show up with out having to override any options. That way we catch real problems if they show up. To try to fix up warnings that no one will ever see is just pointless for stable trees. thanks, greg k-h