Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-13103-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231122034753.1446513-1-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
 <20231128053443.GA6525@google.com> <CAK7LNAT_Z4TeNzngMskEoNdSTWUH5gGzYm5MfO6C_H8rFcF6ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231129041307.GB6525@google.com> <CAK7LNAS8q9eDerwVRbPbqd+AKjNVkEKLOW+NAKaD4duP-gViqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231222025701.GA3568309@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231222025701.GA3568309@google.com>
From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 22:41:54 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARa3WrRp5vmX5M3tTkS-jdno-vFe8WLPXjF8+hHxVUmFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: WERROR unmet symbol dependency
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
Cc: Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com>, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 11:57=E2=80=AFAM Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On (23/12/01 00:42), Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Sergey Senozhatsky
> > <senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On (23/11/28 23:19), Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > >
> > > > KCONFIG_WERROR is meant to turn all warnings
> > > > to errors.
> > > > I do not see getenv("KCONFIG_WERROR")
> > > > sprinkled everywhere in Kconfig.
> > > > One more thing, you cannot directly exit(1)
> > > > from sym_calc_value().
> > >
> > > We do exit(1) for KCONFIG_WARN_UNKNOWN_SYMBOLS in conf_read().
> > >
> > > I can introduce two new helpers that will tell if confdata.c and symb=
ol.c
> > > triggered any warnings and if KCONFIG_WERROR is set. And then differe=
nt
> > > code paths can call them and handle exit gracefully, depending on the
> > > context (ncurses, menu, etc.).
> > >
> > > Something like this
> >
> >
> > I do not want to patch warnings one by one.
> >
> >
> > I will take some time to think about it.
>
> Gentle ping on this.
>
> We are not concerned with every possible warning at the moment, however,
> we do want the critical ones from CI and (semi)automated continuous uprev
> PoV to be covered by WERROR. We do experience real life problems with
> "missing direct dependency" not being a terminal condition under WERROR.


Applied to linux-kbuild.
Thanks.

--=20
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada