On Mon, 09 Oct 2023, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Because having both CI and the subsystem/driver developers enable a local WERROR actually works in keeping the subsystem/driver clean of warnings. For i915, we also enable W=1 warnings and kernel-doc -Werror with it, keeping all of them warning clean. I don't much appreciate calling that anti-social. > >> > 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? The DRM_I915_WERROR config depends on EXPERT and !COMPILE_TEST, and to my knowledge this has never caused issues outside of i915 developers and CI. Maybe the fix to KVM_ERROR config should be - depends on (X86_64 && !KASAN) || !COMPILE_TEST - depends on (X86_64 && !KASAN) && !COMPILE_TEST BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
