Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756303Ab1EBSDN (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2011 14:03:13 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:39122 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752233Ab1EBSDJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2011 14:03:09 -0400 Message-ID: <2b5d75ba05bd7889ac80514015e36ad2.squirrel@www.skyhub.de> In-Reply-To: References: <71633.1304013549@localhost> <1304083893-18849-1-git-send-email-mmarek@suse.cz> <20110502170736.GB18740@merkur.ravnborg.org> Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 20:03:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Allow to combine multiple W= levels From: boris@alien8.de To: "Arnaud Lacombe" Cc: "Sam Ravnborg" , =?iso-8859-15?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= , "Michal Marek" , valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, bp@alien8.de, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1983 Lines: 49 I'm really getting tired of this! > Because you are not even sure of what you submitted is good for the kernel > ? No, because we need to get a feeling of what makes sense for all these options first. I'd rather do the learning-by-doing thing here and implement what makes sense than braindead frameworks. > I think this has been done completely wrong, first all the extra > warnings got in (without a detailed impact implied by each one), WTF? http://marc.info/?l=linux-kbuild&m=130346037604547&w=2 No one else did check those and said, ACK/NACK so we went in with this initial splitting first. > then it was decided to be split in several level (which I proposed on > Feb 20th, but was originally rejected by Borislav Petkov), Of course, because it made no sense at the time. Sam added it later with his proposal patch. > then, well, some may need to be removed because they are not good for > Linux. have you even tried all those options and come up with concrete suggestions on which options should go in and which shouldn't, and for what reasons? I don't think so. So until you do, I don't care what you have to say. [snip a bunch of bullshit] > Now, the drawback of your comment is that when it will be time to > change the interface, some will object because it will have been > started to be used by third party scripts, and as authors of third > party script, it is a PITA to have to check the kernel version to know > if I should W=1,2,3, or W=123 or if W=3 includes W=1 ... This is exactly why we're trying to get a feeling of this by _running_ it and _then_ _bitching_ about it. And this is for DEVELOPERS only - if they've introduced it in their scripts, then they should be able to fix any changes very easily. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/