Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220304124416.1181029-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <CAHp75VeT3LbdbSaiwcC2YW40LnA2h8ADtGva-CKU_xh8Edi0nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220307105810.1747024-1-alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> <CAHp75Vcht_T5kUJu5zjmsUvn+mN+8D5vWBUvRXKTfo+2ocHOTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZ6RqK=yxLwVnotZuGRiao4Vu4eFEfVXfPaZV1r4rEOmQARig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZ6RqK=yxLwVnotZuGRiao4Vu4eFEfVXfPaZV1r4rEOmQARig@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 18:33:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfS0wSB+5dXHvoYfQqe0qEW0dOXGChunqu7PX0BZ4orMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK()
To:     Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>,
        Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:06 PM Vincent MAILHOL
<mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Mon. 7 Mar 2022 at 22:40, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM Alexander Lobakin
> > <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> wrote:
> > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:08 +0200
> > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Vincent Mailhol
> > > > <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

...

> > > > Have you fixed W=1 warnings?
> > > > Without fixing W=1 (which makes much more sense, when used with
> > > > WERROR=y && COMPILE_TEST=y) this has no value.
> > >
> > > How is this connected?
> >
> > By priorities.
> > I don't see much value in fixing W=2 per se if the code doesn't compile for W=1.
>
> *My code* compiles for W=1. For me, fixing this W=2 in the next in line
> if speaking of priorities.

> I do not understand why I should be forbidden to fix a W=2 in the
> file which I am maintaining on the grounds that some code to which
> I do not care still has some W=1.

It's not forbidden. I said something different.

Whatever, thank you for doing it, perhaps we will have less noise in W=2 case.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko