Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 21:23:47 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Cc:     Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        tony.luck@intel.com, james.morse@arm.com, mchehab@kernel.org,
        rric@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/amd64: remove unneeded call to
 reserve_mc_sibling_devs()
Message-ID: <Y+qcU2M5gchfzbky@zn.tnic>
References: <20230213191510.2237360-1-trix@redhat.com>
 <Y+qZthCMRL1m0p4B@yaz-fattaah>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y+qZthCMRL1m0p4B@yaz-fattaah>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 08:12:38PM +0000, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> These errors are encountered when extra warnings are enabled, correct?

It says so in the warning which one it is: -Werror,-Wsometimes-uninitialized

Don't know if we enable that one for clang with W= or Nathan adds
additional switches.

> I think the following patch would resolve this issue. This is part of a set
> that isn't fully applied.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-edac/20230127170419.1824692-12-yazen.ghannam@amd.com/
> 
> Boris,
> Do you think one of these patches should be applied or just hold off until the
> entire original set is applied?

I still wanted to go through the rest but I'm not sure I'll have time
for it before the merge window. So unless this is breaking some silly
testing scenario, I'd say I'll leave things as they are.

Once I take yours, that silly false positive will go away and we can
forget about it.

> As for myself, I'll start including builds with extra warnings enabled
> for each patch in my workflow. Currently I do a regular build for each
> patch and a build with extra warnings for the entire set.

Dunno, I'd say with false positives we have bigger fish to fry...

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette