Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220720232332.2720091-1-justinstitt@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdnSjyOdCZZ9AegCyfns3bvH3fbtbVgdThO2+rJAE=1bag@mail.gmail.com>
 <YtlsY2A2ZWK97Y8O@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <CAK7LNASi_yrPhf0wv+0nqRcNhhbwUn-PzHvuiV2W1EsTqd_D8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFhGd8r1_A67aVt_5tMz-1NC51JrCFG=8cDsmTMz1kOricWEOA@mail.gmail.com> <YugYbvRu1xqnx6mC@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
In-Reply-To: <YugYbvRu1xqnx6mC@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 02:08:39 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQvH=feO_d=0rLGYYQ2YYi=7NRYxGXcYSpYMvqSyOBgew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile.extrawarn: re-enable -Wformat for clang
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@lists.linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 3:16 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 10:40:29AM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > > OK, I think that will be good timing.
> > > Please ping me if I forget to pick it up.
> > >
> > Hey Masahiro, just pinging to see the state of this PR.
> >
> > I think we are on pace to re-enable this warning.
> >
> > I believe there exists only _two_ patches left still needing to go
> > through along with this patch:
> > 1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220718050356.227647-1-hch@lst.de/
>
> This is now in the block tree, so it should be squared away:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/YuFhR9OoPvM9VsdT@infradead.org/
>
> Stephen is on vacation so -next hasn't updated for a few days but it
> sounds like Mark is going to provide some coverage:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/YugAzWWl++ArhhPS@sirena.org.uk/
>
> > 2) https://lore.kernel.org/all/YtnDltqEVeJQQkbW@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
>
> We need to chase this, as I haven't seen an "applied" email. We have two
> options:
>
> 1. Ask the maintainers to apply the change to their branch directly.
> 2. Ask them for an "Ack" so that we can apply that change along with
>    this one.
>
> It is worth a ping asking which they prefer. The first option is
> simpler, as the change that introduced the warning is only in -next so
> it can just be applied to the same branch; the only concern is making
> sure that change makes -rc1. The second option gives us more flexibility
> with enabling the warning in the event that the change missed being
> added to the main pull request but it will require basing the change on
> a non-rc base, which most maintainers don't really like.
>
> It is ultimately up to Masahiro but my vision is:
>
> 1. Ping the patch, asking how to proceed.
> 2. If the maintainers can pick it up and it will make the merge window,
>    let them apply it then apply this patch to the Kbuild tree for -next.
> 3. If they prefer the "Ack" route, wait until mainline contains the
>    problematic patch then apply the warning fix patch and this patch to
>    the Kbuild tree on top of the problematic merge.
> 4. Wait until all other patches are in mainline (I can watch mainline
>    and build it continuously) then pull request the branch containing
>    whatever changes we need.
>
> Masahiro, does that sound reasonable?
>
> Cheers,
> Nathan


Now applied to linux-kbuild.


If my pull request is rejected because of some warnings,
I may end up with dropping this, though.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada