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 07:59:11 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles
Message-ID: <20190913145911.GA21121@roeck-us.net>
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>
 <20190913105446.2b7af558@coco.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190913105446.2b7af558@coco.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:54:46AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> 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.
> 

I used to do that as well, but gave up on it since it resulted in lots
of warnings from generic kernel include files. I have not tried recently,
so maybe that is no longer the case.

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

Acceptance depends on the maintainer, really. I had patches rejected
when trying to fix W=1 warnings, so I no longer do it.

> So, from my side, I'm all to make W=1 default.
> 
Seems to me that would require a common agreement that maintainers
are expected to accept fixes for problems reported with W=1.

Guenter

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss