On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:33:53 -0700 Sean Christopherson wrote: > > We do have sympathy for these folks, we are mostly volunteers after > > all. At the same time someone's under-investment should not be causing > > pain to those of us who _do_ build test stuff carefully. > > This is a bit over the top. Yeah, I need to add W=1 to my build scripts, but that's > not a lack of investment, just an oversight. Though in this case it likely wouldn't > have made any difference since Paolo grabbed the patches directly and might have > even bypassed linux-next. But again I would argue that's bad process, not a lack > of investment. If you do invest in build testing automation, why can't your automation count warnings rather than depend on WERROR? I don't understand. > > Rather than tweak stuff I'd prefer if we could agree that local -Werror > > is anti-social :( > > > > The global WERROR seems to be a good compromise. > > I disagree. WERROR simply doesn't provide the same coverage. E.g. it can't be > enabled for i386 without tuning FRAME_WARN, which (a) won't be at all obvious to > the average contributor and (b) increasing FRAME_WARN effectively reduces the > test coverage of KVM i386. > > For KVM x86, I want the rules for contributing to be clearly documented, and as > simple as possible. I don't see a sane way to achieve that with WERROR=y. Linus, you created the global WERROR option. Do you have an opinion on whether random subsystems should create their own WERROR flags? W=1 warning got in thru KVM and since they have a KVM_WERROR which defaults to enabled it broke build testing in networking. Randomly sprinkled -Werrors are fragile. Can we ask people to stop using them now that the global ERROR exists?
