On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > -fwrapv killed Barry's gcc-4.1.2-compiled kernel in 2.6.27.x,
> > 2.6.28.x and presumably 2.6.29, 2.6.30.
>
> Auughh. I hate compiler bugs. They're horrible to debug.
>
> I _think_ 'fwrapv' only really matters with gcc-4.3, so maybe we could
> just enable it for new versions.
>
> HOWEVER, I also wonder if we could instead of "-fwrapv" use
> "-fno-strict-overflow". They are apparently subtly different, and maybe
> the bug literally only happens with -fwrapv.
>
> Barry, can you see if that simple "replace -fwrapv with
> -fno-strict-overflow" works for you?
>
> Or just go with Barry's helpful debugging:
> > > I also noticed that the problem only happens with some gcc's:
> > >
> > > Problem occurs:
> > > gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)
> > > gcc-4.1 (GCC) 4.1.3 20080704 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.2-25)
> > >
> > > Problem does not occur (i.e. 2.6.28.9 works and I don't have to
> > > revert anything):
> > > gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.4 (Debian 4.2.4-6)
> > > gcc (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) 4.3.2
>
> and consider 4.2 to be the point where it's ok.
>
> Do we have some gcc developer who
> (a) knows what the rules are
> and
> (b) might even help us figure out where the bug occurs?
The discussion on issue looks to have died, but it has bitten Debian
stable ("Lenny") [1] as it causes init to die on s390 after a kernel
update.
Here's a possible patch. The exact gcc version to check for is still a bit
open I guess. For the s390 issue I've confirmed that 4.2.4 is OK, but for
safety and because of Andrew's comment above I've set the test for 4.3 in
the patch.
Cheers,
FJP
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/536354
---
From: Frans Pop <[email protected]>
Subject: Only add '-fwrapv' to gcc CFLAGS for gcc 4.3 and later
This flag has been shown to cause init to segfault for kernels
compiled with gcc-4.1. gcc version 4.2.4 has been shown to be OK,
but as there is some uncertainty the flag is only added for 4.3
and later.
This fixes http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13012.
Reported-by: Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Frans Pop <[email protected]>
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 0aeec59..2f8756e 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -565,7 +565,8 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call
cc-option,-Wdeclaration-after-statement,)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wno-pointer-sign,)
# disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
-KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0430 ]; then \
+ echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
# revert to pre-gcc-4.4 behaviour of .eh_frame
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm)
On Friday 10 July 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > -fwrapv killed Barry's gcc-4.1.2-compiled kernel in 2.6.27.x,
> > > 2.6.28.x and presumably 2.6.29, 2.6.30.
> >
> > Auughh. I hate compiler bugs. They're horrible to debug.
> >
> > I _think_ 'fwrapv' only really matters with gcc-4.3, so maybe we
> > could just enable it for new versions.
> >
> > HOWEVER, I also wonder if we could instead of "-fwrapv" use
> > "-fno-strict-overflow". They are apparently subtly different, and
> > maybe the bug literally only happens with -fwrapv.
> >
> > Barry, can you see if that simple "replace -fwrapv with
> > -fno-strict-overflow" works for you?
Prompted by the same suggestion from Ben Hutchings I checked this too,
but -fno-strict-overflow was only introduced in gcc 4.2.
So using it instead of -fwrapv *would* fix the problem for gcc 4.1, but
*only* because it would effectively do the same as the patch I proposed:
not add an option at all for gcc 4.1.
So that change seems illogical unless there are other reasons to
prefer -fno-strict-overflow over -fwrapv (well, it would avoid the
gcc version check).
It does however make it somewhat more logical to change the test in my
proposed patch to also allow -fwrapv for gcc 4.2.
Cheers,
FJP
On Friday 10 July 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> The discussion on issue looks to have died, but it has bitten Debian
> stable ("Lenny") [1] as it causes init to die on s390 after a kernel
> update.
>
> Here's a possible patch. The exact gcc version to check for is still a
> bit open I guess. For the s390 issue I've confirmed that 4.2.4 is OK,
> but for safety and because of Andrew's comment above I've set the test
> for 4.3 in the patch.
Here's an updated patch as I found the gcc version check was incorrect
(0430 should have been 0403; sorry).
I've now changed the check to allow -fwrapv for gcc 4.2 as that has been
shown to work and because of the consideration mentioned in my previous
mail.
---
From: Frans Pop <[email protected]>
Subject: Only add '-fwrapv' to gcc CFLAGS for gcc 4.2 and later
This flag has been shown to cause init to segfault for kernels
compiled with gcc-4.1. gcc version 4.2.4 has been shown to be OK.
This fixes http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13012.
Reported-by: Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Frans Pop <[email protected]>
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 0aeec59..2519fde 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -565,7 +565,8 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call
cc-option,-Wdeclaration-after-statement,)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wno-pointer-sign,)
# disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
-KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0402 ]; then \
+ echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
# revert to pre-gcc-4.4 behaviour of .eh_frame
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm)
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Prompted by the same suggestion from Ben Hutchings I checked this too,
> but -fno-strict-overflow was only introduced in gcc 4.2.
> So using it instead of -fwrapv *would* fix the problem for gcc 4.1, but
> *only* because it would effectively do the same as the patch I proposed:
> not add an option at all for gcc 4.1.
>
> So that change seems illogical unless there are other reasons to
> prefer -fno-strict-overflow over -fwrapv (well, it would avoid the
> gcc version check).
>
> It does however make it somewhat more logical to change the test in my
> proposed patch to also allow -fwrapv for gcc 4.2.
Hmm. It all really makes me suspect that we should really be using
-fno-strict-overflow instead.
That not only apparently avoids the unnecessary gcc version check (by
virtue of the option only existing in compilers that don't have the
problem), but qutie frankly, one of the core people involved with the
whole thing (Ian Lance Taylor) seems to think it's the better option.
See for example
http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/120
on how gcc actually generates better code with -fno-strict-overflow.
I added Ian to the cc.
Ian: we generally do try to be careful and use explicit unsigned types for
code that cares about overflow, but we use -fwrapv because there have been
some cases where we didn't (and used pointer comparisons or signed
integers).
The problem is that apparently gcc-4.1.x was literally generating buggy
code with -fwrapv. So now the choice for us is between switching to an
explicit version test:
-KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0402 ]; then \
+ echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
or just switching to -fno-strict-overflow instead:
-KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-strict-overflow)
which avoids the buggy gcc versions because it's simply not even supported
by gcc-4.1.x (and even if that wasn't the case, possibly because only
'wrapv' is the problematic case - apparently the difference _does_
matter to gcc).
>From everything I have been able to find, I really prefer the second
version. Not only is the patch cleaner, but it looks like code generation
is better too (for some inexplicable reason, but I suspect it's because
-fno-strict-overflow is just saner).
Linus
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> From everything I have been able to find, I really prefer the second
> version. Not only is the patch cleaner, but it looks like code generation
> is better too (for some inexplicable reason, but I suspect it's because
> -fno-strict-overflow is just saner).
Hmm. I just checked. The file that caused us to do this thing in the first
place (fs/open.c, around like 415, which does:
/* Check for wrap through zero too */
if (((offset + len) > inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes) || ((offset + len) < 0))
goto out_fput;
to check that the resulting 'loffset_t' type is all good) has interesting
behaviour with my version of gcc (gcc version 4.4.0 20090506 (Red Hat
4.4.0-4) (GCC)).
- Without any options:
leaq (%rcx,%rdx), %rdi #, tmp73
movq 256(%rbx), %rsi # <variable>.i_sb, <variable>.i_sb
movl $-27, %eax #, D.29131
cmpq 40(%rsi), %rdi # <variable>.s_maxbytes, tmp73
ja .L148 #,
- With -fno-strict-overflow:
leaq (%rcx,%rdx), %rax #, D.29157
movq 256(%rbx), %rsi # <variable>.i_sb, <variable>.i_sb
cmpq 40(%rsi), %rax # <variable>.s_maxbytes, D.29157
ja .L154 #,
testq %rax, %rax # D.29157
js .L154 #,
- With -fwrapv:
leaq (%rcx,%rdx), %rax #, D.29158
movq 256(%rbx), %rsi # <variable>.i_sb, <variable>.i_sb
cmpq 40(%rsi), %rax # <variable>.s_maxbytes, D.29158
ja .L154 #,
testq %rax, %rax # D.29158
js .L154 #,
and from this it would look like:
- gcc on its own is actually the best version (the first comparison is
unsigned because s_maxbytes is actually 'unsigned long long', so it
actually does the right thing!)
In other words, the whole '< 0' was unnecessary, but does make the
source code way more readable, and makes the source code _correct_
regardless of any type issues!
- From a cursory inspection, -fno-strict-overflow and -fwrapv are both
equivalent in this code, and both do the stupid thing (but for good
reason - gcc doesn't know that 's_maxbytes' might not be 'negative in a
loffset_t', so technically speaking the extraneous 'js' is not
extraneous, because it can actually trigger some "more negative"
entries than s_maxbyes is.
- HOWEVER:
[torvalds@nehalem ~]$ git diff --stat open.s open.s-fno-strict-overflow
open.s => open.s-fno-strict-overflow | 22 +++++++++++++---------
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
[torvalds@nehalem ~]$ git diff --stat open.s open.s-fwrapv
open.s => open.s-fwrapv | 296 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 files changed, 150 insertions(+), 146 deletions(-)
where the _only_ difference that '-fno-strict-overflow' introduces is
that one small area (it's saying 22 lines changed, but that's because
there's also the compiler option listing at the top of the file etc)
In contrast, -fwrapv has done a lot of other changes too. Now, in both
cases, it really only added the same four instructions (testq + js +
branchtarget + jumparound).
It looks like 'fwrapv' generates more temporaries (possibly for the code
that treies to enforce the exact twos-complement behavior) that then all
get optimized back out again. The differences seem to be in the temporary
variable numbers etc, not in the actual code.
So fwrapv really _is_ different from fno-strict-pverflow, and disturbs the
code generation more.
IOW, I'm convinced we should never use fwrapv. It's clearly a buggy piece
of sh*t, as shown by our 4.1.x experiences. We should use
-fno-strict-overflow.
Will commit the following (which also fits naming-wise with our use of
'-fno-strict-aliasing').
Linus
---
Makefile | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 0aeec59..bbe8453 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wdeclaration-after-statement,)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wno-pointer-sign,)
# disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
-KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-strict-overflow)
# revert to pre-gcc-4.4 behaviour of .eh_frame
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> writes:
> Ian: we generally do try to be careful and use explicit unsigned types for
> code that cares about overflow, but we use -fwrapv because there have been
> some cases where we didn't (and used pointer comparisons or signed
> integers).
>
> The problem is that apparently gcc-4.1.x was literally generating buggy
> code with -fwrapv. So now the choice for us is between switching to an
> explicit version test:
>
> -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0402 ]; then \
> + echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
>
> or just switching to -fno-strict-overflow instead:
>
> -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fno-strict-overflow)
>
> which avoids the buggy gcc versions because it's simply not even supported
> by gcc-4.1.x (and even if that wasn't the case, possibly because only
> 'wrapv' is the problematic case - apparently the difference _does_
> matter to gcc).
My instinctive advice is that y'all should track down and fix the cases
where the program relies on signed overflow being defined. However, if
that is difficult--and it is--then I agree that -fno-strict-overflow is
preferable when using a compiler which supports it (gcc 4.2.0 and
later).
(The gcc 4.2 and later option -Wstrict-overflow=N can help find the
cases where a program relies on defined signed overflow, but only if
somebody is patient enough to wade through all the false positives.)
Ian
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:05:47PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Friday 10 July 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The discussion on issue looks to have died, but it has bitten Debian
> > stable ("Lenny") [1] as it causes init to die on s390 after a kernel
> > update.
> >
> > Here's a possible patch. The exact gcc version to check for is still a
> > bit open I guess. For the s390 issue I've confirmed that 4.2.4 is OK,
> > but for safety and because of Andrew's comment above I've set the test
> > for 4.3 in the patch.
>
> Here's an updated patch as I found the gcc version check was incorrect
> (0430 should have been 0403; sorry).
>
> I've now changed the check to allow -fwrapv for gcc 4.2 as that has been
> shown to work and because of the consideration mentioned in my previous
> mail.
>
> ---
> From: Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> Subject: Only add '-fwrapv' to gcc CFLAGS for gcc 4.2 and later
>
> This flag has been shown to cause init to segfault for kernels
> compiled with gcc-4.1. gcc version 4.2.4 has been shown to be OK.
>
> This fixes http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13012.
>
> Reported-by: Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Frans Pop <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 0aeec59..2519fde 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -565,7 +565,8 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call
> cc-option,-Wdeclaration-after-statement,)
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wno-pointer-sign,)
>
> # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
> -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0402 ]; then \
> + echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
This would be simpler if you use:
# cc-ifversion
# Usage: EXTRA_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0402, -O1)
cc-ifversion = $(shell [ $(call cc-version, $(CC)) $(1) $(2) ] && echo $(3))
We have only one user at the moment so I understand why you missed it.
Sam
On Saturday 18 July 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
> > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
> > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0402 ]; then \
> > + echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
>
> This would be simpler if you use:
That's now academic as Linus decided on a different fix.
> # cc-ifversion
> # Usage: EXTRA_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0402, -O1)
> cc-ifversion = $(shell [ $(call cc-version, $(CC)) $(1) $(2) ] && echo $(3))
>
> We have only one user at the moment so I understand why you missed it.
:-)
I based my patch on arch/x86/Makefile:
35: KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -lt 0400 ] ; then \
36: echo $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time); fi ;)
Guess that could be improved to use cc-ifversion then.
And a quick git grep gives a few other potential candidates:
arch/ia64/Makefile:44:ifeq ($(call cc-version),0304)
arch/parisc/Makefile:129: @if test "$(call cc-version)" -lt "0303"; then \
arch/powerpc/Makefile:80:GCC_BROKEN_VEC := $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -lt 0400 ] ; then echo "y"; fi)
arch/powerpc/Makefile:219: @if test "$(call cc-version)" = "0304" ; then \
arch/um/Makefile-i386:38:KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -lt 0400 ] ; then \
Cheers,
FJP
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:43:51AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 18 July 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
> > > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-fwrapv)
> > > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -ge 0402 ]; then \
> > > + echo $(call cc-option,-fwrapv); fi ;)
> >
> > This would be simpler if you use:
>
> That's now academic as Linus decided on a different fix.
OK
>
> > # cc-ifversion
> > # Usage: EXTRA_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0402, -O1)
> > cc-ifversion = $(shell [ $(call cc-version, $(CC)) $(1) $(2) ] && echo $(3))
> >
> > We have only one user at the moment so I understand why you missed it.
>
> :-)
>
> I based my patch on arch/x86/Makefile:
> 35: KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -lt 0400 ] ; then \
> 36: echo $(call cc-option,-fno-unit-at-a-time); fi ;)
>
> Guess that could be improved to use cc-ifversion then.
Yes, please...
>
> And a quick git grep gives a few other potential candidates:
> arch/ia64/Makefile:44:ifeq ($(call cc-version),0304)
> arch/parisc/Makefile:129: @if test "$(call cc-version)" -lt "0303"; then \
> arch/powerpc/Makefile:80:GCC_BROKEN_VEC := $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -lt 0400 ] ; then echo "y"; fi)
> arch/powerpc/Makefile:219: @if test "$(call cc-version)" = "0304" ; then \
> arch/um/Makefile-i386:38:KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(shell if [ $(call cc-version) -lt 0400 ] ; then \
Same goes for these.
Sam
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:29:50PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> (The gcc 4.2 and later option -Wstrict-overflow=N can help find the
> cases where a program relies on defined signed overflow, but only if
> somebody is patient enough to wade through all the false positives.)
I got curious and wondered just how many warnings this would trigger,
so I did a build with -Wstrict-overflow=5. I was pleasantly surprised
to see that it isn't that many from an allmodconfig build..
crypto/algboss.c:173: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
net/ipv4/igmp.c:773: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/ata/libata-eh.c:3076: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
sound/core/seq/seq_queue.c:195: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/block/ub.c:2293: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
sound/pci/es1968.c:1545: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
sound/pci/es1968.c:1582: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
fs/ext3/inode.c:658: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
fs/ext4/inode.c:797: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c:726: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
sound/soc/codecs/wm8988.c:665: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
net/bluetooth/cmtp/core.c:234: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
net/mac80211/rc80211_minstrel.c:193: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/debug.c:419: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/uio/uio.c:707: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/uio/uio.c:671: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/uio/uio.c:642: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/net/usb/hso.c:2308: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_g450.c:214: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_g450.c:160: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_maven.c:1125: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/video/matrox/matroxfb_maven.c:1044: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
drivers/net/wireless/zd1211rw/zd_rf_uw2453.c:417: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying conditional to constant
Some of these appear to be obvious cases where we don't care about
the sign (loop counters for eg)
Is it worth fixing these up, with diffs like the below ?
Dave
diff --git a/fs/ext3/inode.c b/fs/ext3/inode.c
index 5f51fed..3bb95de 100644
--- a/fs/ext3/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext3/inode.c
@@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ static int ext3_alloc_branch(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
int *offsets, Indirect *branch)
{
int blocksize = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
- int i, n = 0;
+ unsigned int i, n = 0;
int err = 0;
struct buffer_head *bh;
int num;
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Is it worth fixing these up, with diffs like the below ?
Historically, when we fix up bugs like this, it causes more bugs than it
fixes.
It needs _really_ careful people, and people who really understand how C
type rules work. Stuff that looks obvious often is not, and basing a large
part of the patch on a compiler warning is a _very_ weak reason for
something that is more than just syntactic.
And the problem is, nobody can judge the patch from the diff. So it gets
absolutely zero review, until the day when somebody notices that the
unsigned version is a bug.
I'd suggest that the rule should be:
- if you can use -U30 and show all uses, so that people can actually look
at the patch and see what it _causes_ (ie not just the "we change 'i'
to 'unsigned'", but also the "this is where 'i' gets used, and
'unsigned' is right"), then we can apply it.
- none of the patches go through a 'trivial' tree, or come from newbies
that think this is a good way to get involved.
Is it worth it at that point? I dunno.
Linus