Re: stable-rc build: 72 warnings 1 failures (stable-rc/v4.4.30-35-gf821e08)

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:44:47AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:17:41PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 9:16:28 AM CET Olof's autobuilder wrote:
> > >> Here are the build results from automated periodic testing.
> > >>
> > >> The tree being built was stable-rc, found at:
> > >>
> > >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/
> > >>
> > >> Topmost commit:
> > >>
> > >> f821e08 Linux 4.4.31-rc1
> > >>
> > >> Build logs (stderr only) can be found at the following link (experimental):
> > >>
> > >> http://arm-soc.lixom.net/buildlogs/stable-rc/v4.4.30-35-gf821e08/
> > >
> > > These seem to be largely caused by building with gcc-6. It's probably
> > > a good idea to keep supporting that configuration though and
> > > backport the fixes. Here are the upstream commit IDs I've found.
> > 
> > That's a lot of noise. I'll move back to build with gcc 4.9.2 instead, for now.
> > 
> > It's not entirely reasonable to expect older releases to build with
> > new toolchains without warnings, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to
> > bring back those fixes to -stable (unless they fix real bugs, of
> > course).
> 
> My test-builder system is using gcc-6, and I do keep track of warnings
> as it is a good indication that an applied patch is wrong (found a bug
> in an i2c patch just yesterday because of it.)
> 
> I'm currently seeing only 3 warnings on x86 for 4.4-stable and gcc-6,
> and just found the fix for one of them, so I'll gladly take warning
> fixes that resolve issues to make it easier for the real problems to
> jump out at us.

And now I'm down to 0 warnings thanks to Arnd's hints in this thread and
some more digging.  If there's anything else I should add to 4.4 to make
it "quieter", please let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h