Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 09:16:22 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To:     Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>
Cc:     kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/32] Set 2: Rid W=1 warnings in Wireless
Message-ID: <20200824081622.GI3248864@dell>
References: <20200821071644.109970-1-lee.jones@linaro.org>
 <a3915e15-0583-413f-1fcf-7cb9933ec0bf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a3915e15-0583-413f-1fcf-7cb9933ec0bf@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, Christian Lamparter wrote:

> On 2020-08-21 09:16, Lee Jones wrote:
> > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
> > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
> > niggly little warnings.
> > 
> I see that after our discussion about the carl9170 change in this
> thread following your patch: <https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/14/291>
> 
> you decided the best way to address our requirements, was to "drop"
> your patch from the series, instead of just implementing the requested
> changes. :(

No, this is "set 2", not "v2".

The patch you refer to is in the first set.

Looks like I am waiting for your reply [0]:

[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/18/334

> > There are quite a few W=1 warnings in the Wireless.  My plan
> > is to work through all of them over the next few weeks.
> > Hopefully it won't be too long before drivers/net/wireless
> > builds clean with W=1 enabled.
> 
> Just a parting note for your consideration:
> 
> Since 5.7 [0], it has become rather easy to also compile the linux kernel
> with clang and the LLVM Utilities.
> <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/llvm.html>
> 
> I hope this information can help you to see beyond that one-unamed
> "compiler" bias there... I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Never used them.

GCC has always worked well for me.  What are their benefits over GCC?

I already build for 5 architectures locally and a great deal more
(arch * defconfigs) using remote testing infrastructures.  Multiplying
them without very good reason sounds like a *potential* waste of
already limited computation resources.

> Christian
> 
> [0] <https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-5.7-Kbuild-Easier-LLVM>

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog