Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-2738-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:55:05 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
 <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-next-2024-01-25
Message-ID: <20240129115505.76d35e31@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87mssrxf44.fsf@kernel.org>
References: <20240125104030.B6CA6C433C7@smtp.kernel.org>
	<20240125165128.7e43a1f3@kernel.org>
	<87r0i4zl92.fsf@kernel.org>
	<18d447cc0b8.279b.9b12b7fc0a3841636cfb5e919b41b954@broadcom.com>
	<877cjwz9ya.fsf@kernel.org>
	<20240126105255.5476cf85@kernel.org>
	<87mssrxf44.fsf@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:08:59 +0200 Kalle Valo wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> writes:
> >> I don't run checkpatch except for ath10k/ath11k/ath12k, too much noise.
> >> I ended up adding this to my script:  
> >
> > We run build with sparse and W=1 and then diff the number of warnings 
> > to weed out the pre-existing ones, FWIW.   
> 
> So for wireless and wireless-next I now check W=1 warnings every time I
> push. We are mostly warning free now but I'm not checking the linker
> warnings, for example the current MODULE_DESCRIPTION() warnings.
> 
> It's really annoying, and extra work, that people enable new W=1
> warnings before fixing them. Could we somehow push back on those and
> require that warnings are fixed before enabling with W=1 level?

My quite possibly incorrect understanding is that "giving people time
to fix" is the main point of W=1 :( W=2 is for stuff which may false
positive, W=1 is for stuff which does not false positive but we can't
enable it in formal builds because the tree is full of it.

> In wireless there is a significant number of sparse warnings. I have
> tried the cleanup people to fix them but it seems there's no interest,
> instead we get to receive pointless cleanups wasting our time. <loud sigh>

Tell me about it.. :)

> BTW the 'no new line at end of file' warning is indeed from sparse, like
> Arend suspected:
> 
> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/fwil.c:432:49: warning: no newline at end of file

BTW I'd happy to help you set up an instance of our build testing bot,
if you have a VM that can be used. It does take a bit of care and
feeding, but seeing the build failures in patchwork pays the time back.