From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:31:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCHv2 00/19] ARM: common warning fixes In-Reply-To: <20130126100542.GC23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1359123276-15833-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1359153858-31992-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20130126100542.GC23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <201301261331.40932.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Saturday 26 January 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:43:59PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I will get to those once this series is sorted out. > > Since there are no interdepencies between the patches, > > my preference is to have them applied by the individual > > subsystem maintainers. Anything that has not at > > least made it into linux-next by the next merge window > > and has not received a 'NAK' or been obsoleted by > > another patch, I plan to submit as part of an arm-soc > > branch for 3.9. > > And, last night we have new warnings. My allnoconfigs no longer build > cleanly because of new vexpress section mismatches in the mfd code. Yes, I already sent a patch yesterday. The problem was a regression that came in through the arm-soc tree unfortunately, but I can easily fix it then. > It seems to me that you're on a loosing battle unless you test the tree > and drop code before propaging it out if it adds new warnings... force > the pain of these warnings down on to others so that they learn to create > better code in the first place. That was always the idea, right now I mainly try to get back to the almost clean state I had some time ago. The largest problem right now is gcc-4.7, which adds a lot of new bogus warnings. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754061Ab3AZNbq (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:31:46 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:61105 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751019Ab3AZNbn (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:31:43 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Russell King - ARM Linux" Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/19] ARM: common warning fixes Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:31:40 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-1-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1359123276-15833-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1359153858-31992-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20130126100542.GC23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130126100542.GC23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201301261331.40932.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:JF+W6tdH3SXMBvIoBq6Ed6dgGa8Lwc0/3z70QB3tb1F DxIV0T4PFoiSyYNMS7keAbkcDF3edkxyZWJfBOAB0LcVQDrVRI g679H7+HcaISqiFtXAT1HCQvefYMuGX87DAYW+VgUbX4OTGud0 BP9ouh7iYA97EaAIpsY5Jhr4BpgoGBhoKQHbuyIl5TgNQ9WsR/ j8PowopdfMp7rF5Z9c3XYM7933vF1XKFT8JHiGI/UI/IPEyRhH /dVuHQv7PPNiDh6P5QNvIcBClLVInY+f1ChUkMFpBz87JPVmL2 4cKaeqAccKbkXcg19sEj1cL8YlRGd+Mo3XbqeRrXsb01diErDh PRpvYjpvHJclYKtYHZK0= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 26 January 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:43:59PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I will get to those once this series is sorted out. > > Since there are no interdepencies between the patches, > > my preference is to have them applied by the individual > > subsystem maintainers. Anything that has not at > > least made it into linux-next by the next merge window > > and has not received a 'NAK' or been obsoleted by > > another patch, I plan to submit as part of an arm-soc > > branch for 3.9. > > And, last night we have new warnings. My allnoconfigs no longer build > cleanly because of new vexpress section mismatches in the mfd code. Yes, I already sent a patch yesterday. The problem was a regression that came in through the arm-soc tree unfortunately, but I can easily fix it then. > It seems to me that you're on a loosing battle unless you test the tree > and drop code before propaging it out if it adds new warnings... force > the pain of these warnings down on to others so that they learn to create > better code in the first place. That was always the idea, right now I mainly try to get back to the almost clean state I had some time ago. The largest problem right now is gcc-4.7, which adds a lot of new bogus warnings. Arnd