Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:54:46 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles
Message-ID: <20190913105446.2b7af558@coco.lan>
In-Reply-To: <CAFhKne8Nbk=OnZO_pqPURneVtxcHqbfkH+xJBrAYfCfsntfQ2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
        <yq1o8zqeqhb.fsf@oracle.com>
        <6fe45562-9493-25cf-afdb-6c0e702a49b4@acm.org>
        <44c08faf43fa77fb271f8dbb579079fb09007716.camel@perches.com>
        <74984dc0-d5e4-f272-34b9-9a78619d5a83@acm.org>
        <CAFhKne8Nbk=OnZO_pqPURneVtxcHqbfkH+xJBrAYfCfsntfQ2g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:56:30 -0400
Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com> escreveu:

> It's easy enough to move the kernel-doc warnings out from under W=1. I only
> out them there to avoid overwhelming us with new warnings. If they're
> mostly fixed now, let's make checking them the default.

Didn't try doing it kernelwide, but for media we do use W=1 by default,
on our CI instance.

There's a few warnings at EDAC, but they all seem easy enough to be
fixed.

So, from my side, I'm all to make W=1 default.

Regards,
Mauro

> 
> On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 16:01 Bart Van Assche, <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 9/12/19 8:34 AM, Joe Perches wrote:  
> > > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:31 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:  
> > >> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:  
> > >>> * The patch must compile without warnings (make C=1  
> > CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__")  
> > >>>   and does not incur any zeroday test robot complaints.  
> > >>
> > >> How about adding W=1 to that make command?  
> > >
> > > That's rather too compiler version dependent and new
> > > warnings frequently get introduced by new compiler versions.  
> >
> > I've never observed this myself. If a new compiler warning is added to
> > gcc and if it produces warnings that are not useful for kernel code
> > usually Linus or someone else is quick to suppress that warning.
> >
> > Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the formatting of kernel-doc
> > headers is checked only if W=1 is passed to make.
> >
> > Bart.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
> >  


Thanks,
Mauro