Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180355-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPM=9tw-53PCvveRcdLUUQ+mjq2X2er5zp6n1KeE8Nu8x=VP2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tw-53PCvveRcdLUUQ+mjq2X2er5zp6n1KeE8Nu8x=VP2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 13:43:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whxT8D_0j=bjtrvj-O=VEOjn6GW8GK4j2V+BiDUntZKAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.10-rc1
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 23:21, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is the main pull request for the drm subsystems for 6.10.

. and now that I look more at this pull request, I find other things wrong.

Why is the DRM code asking if I want to enable -Werror? I have Werror
enabled *already*.

I hate stupid config questions. They only confuse users.

If the global WERROR config is enabled, then the DRM config certainly
shouldn't ask whether you want even more -Werror. It does nothing but
annoy people.

And no, we are not going to have subsystems that can *weaken* the
existing CONFIG_WERROR. Happily, that doesn't seem to be what the DRM
code wants to do, it just wants to add -Werror, but as mentioned, its'
crazy to do that when we already have it globally enabled.

Now, it might make more sense to ask if you want -Wextra. A lot of
those warnings are bogus.

               Linus