From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:51776 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751277AbcKIKCf (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:02:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:02:43 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Olof Johansson Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Kernel Build Reports Mailman List , Olof's autobuilder , stable , "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: stable-rc build: 72 warnings 1 failures (stable-rc/v4.4.30-35-gf821e08) Message-ID: <20161109100243.GA11827@kroah.com> References: <5822086c.4666420a.e9479.80e9@mx.google.com> <2049467.HlUiazMrKa@wuerfel> <20161109094447.GB9540@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161109094447.GB9540@kroah.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 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