On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:11:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-09-25 at 10:55 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:39:53PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:03:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 19:59 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:38:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 13:34 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > 3.18-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why should this sort of change be applied to a stable release? > > > > > > > > > > Originally I was just going to drop this as it's not fixing something. > > > > > > > > > > But it might be, if that macro is used in a if() statement, or something > > > > > like that, it could be doing something unintended. > > > > > > > > No it couldn't. > > > > An empty macro is equivalent to a single statement. > > > > > > > > > So I don't feel like auditing all 500+ instances where this is used, > > > > > it's easier to just accept the patch. > > > > > > > > It's not a bug fix. > > > > > > This question came up a few months ago. Greg suggested that we should be > > > pulling in warning fixes to get the stable kernels warning-free similar > > > to upstream. > > > > > > The reasoning behind it was similar to the "no warnings" reasoning of > > > upstream: there might be real issues hiding in the sea of "harmless" > > > warnings, so we want to get rid of all of them to catch real issues. > > > > No warnings is great, > > I believe that is not necessarily true. For me, it is essencial. As proof of this, I found an actual bug in a patch that added a warning to the build. If my scripts hadn't shown that we had gone from 0 to 1 warnings, then I would have missed that. So I want to keep the stable trees at 0 warnings if at all possible, for x86-64 at the least. > Change to a new compiler version and new warnings could be > added somewhat arbitrarily. That's true, and is why I am stuck at gcc7 at the moment, as gcc8 does horrid things to older stable kernels :) thanks, greg k-h
