Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:12:45 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:57:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:47:49 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > > And yes btw we should turn this option on in -next, and get these sort of
> > > things out of the tree for good. More importantly it'll mean anyone
> > > adding another one gets a whine on the spot.
> > 
> > While I appreciate your confidence, I don't notice quite a few new
> > warnings (because there are so many of them already :-().  Is there some
> > reason to not turn this on in our "normal" builds?  Does it produce many
> > false positives?
> 
> Yes, it produces a huge number of warnings which need weeding out (some
> of them are false positives and some of them are simply unfixable due to
> design decisions in the kernel, etc, etc):
> 
> $ make W=123 drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.o 2> w.log

I was just talking about the always true/always false stuff !