WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

[gregkh]

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
<stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

>From 3140c156e919b0f5fad5c5f6cf7876c39d1d4f06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:15:32 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning

fix a "warning: no previous prototype".

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 8f108131d85d..b2ff74b12ec4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -7943,7 +7943,7 @@ int kvm_task_switch(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 tss_selector, int idt_index,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_task_switch);
 
-int kvm_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs)
+static int kvm_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs)
 {
 	if ((sregs->efer & EFER_LME) && (sregs->cr0 & X86_CR0_PG)) {
 		/*

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
> 
> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> 
> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> seen again.

There are people compiling with -Werror.  But really, I sometimes wonder
if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU
coding standards].  Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are
(at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing
that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Paolo

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
> > 
> > I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> > 
> > I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
> > <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> > applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> > seen again.
> 
> There are people compiling with -Werror.  But really, I sometimes wonder
> if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU
> coding standards].  Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are
> (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing
> that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Are you sure -Werror shows this?  And it's not just a sparse "warning"?

I want to fix "normal" build warnings, ones that show up with out having
to override any options. That way we catch real problems if they show
up.  To try to fix up warnings that no one will ever see is just
pointless for stable trees.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 17/04/2018 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
>> There are people compiling with -Werror.  But really, I sometimes wonder
>> if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU
>> coding standards].  Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are
>> (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing
>> that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
> Are you sure -Werror shows this?  And it's not just a sparse "warning"?

This should be -Wimplicit, which is enabled by -Wall.

Paolo

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:10:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/04/2018 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
> >> There are people compiling with -Werror.  But really, I sometimes wonder
> >> if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU
> >> coding standards].  Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are
> >> (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing
> >> that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
> > Are you sure -Werror shows this?  And it's not just a sparse "warning"?
> 
> This should be -Wimplicit, which is enabled by -Wall.

ah, yet-another-W-option that should never be enabled :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
> 
> I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
> 
> I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to 
> <stable@vger.kernel.org> and let me know why this patch should be
> applied.  Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be
> seen again.

There are people compiling with -Werror.  You can omit it, but really I
sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same
way as the GNU coding standards.  Most patches that are "auto-selected"
these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..."
type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Paolo