Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751744AbdFGVYT (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:24:19 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53266 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751458AbdFGVYR (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:24:17 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 81865239F4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:24:13 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Matthias Kaehlcke , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , David Rientjes , Douglas Anderson , Guenter Roeck , Mark Brown , David Miller , Tom Herbert Subject: Re: [RFC] clang: 'unused-function' warning on static inline functions Message-ID: <20170607172413.109bc8b8@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20170530181306.GV141096@google.com> <20170531235519.GX141096@google.com> <20170606212354.GZ141096@google.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1813 Lines: 47 On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 13:36:27 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > The main reason I see for it is that a lot of the unused inline functions > > in C files are mistakes, > > Bah. Blah blah blah. > > The clang warnign doesn't actually really buy us anything, and it's a > completely pointless difference to gcc. > > I'm not in the least interested in supporting these kinds of pointless > differences. > > The people who are interested in making the kernel compile well with > clang should care about the things that matter, not annoying people > with idiotic patches. > > So stop the idiotic patches. When clang actually adds _value_, that's > one thing. Right now it's just stupid noise. > > For some reason compiler people think that "more warnings are good". > No. They are not. More noise without any value is absolutely not good, > and an unused inline function si by definition not something we care > about. > > Really. Fit the clang noise. Get clang to generate good code. > > Once clang has actually proven itself, and we haev years of clang > under our belt, and clang isn't just a toy and a source of bugs and > pointless warnings as far as kernel builds are concerned, THEN we can > start talking about actually making use of clang features. > > Right now it should be about "don't be a f*cking pain in the arse!" > Personally, I don't find the unused static inline function warning that helpful either. But the only worry I have to totally ignoring them, is that they could contain buggy code, which may either be cut-and-pasted into code that is used, or one day used, and then inject buggy code. But other than that, I pretty much agree with your assessment on this one. -- Steve