From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC] MAINTAINERS tag for cleanup robot Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 14:56:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20201122145635.GG4327@casper.infradead.org> References: <20201121165058.1644182-1-trix@redhat.com> <20201122032304.GE4327@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55244 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726436AbgKVO4q (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Nov 2020 09:56:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tom Rix Cc: joe@perches.com, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 06:46:46AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: > > On 11/21/20 7:23 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:50:58AM -0800, trix@redhat.com wrote: > >> The fixer review is > >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D91789 > >> > >> A run over allyesconfig for x86_64 finds 62 issues, 5 are false positives. > >> The false positives are caused by macros passed to other macros and by > >> some macro expansions that did not have an extra semicolon. > >> > >> This cleans up about 1,000 of the current 10,000 -Wextra-semi-stmt > >> warnings in linux-next. > > Are any of them not false-positives? It's all very well to enable > > stricter warnings, but if they don't fix any bugs, they're just churn. > > > While enabling additional warnings may be a side effect of this effort > > the primary goal is to set up a cleaning robot. After that a refactoring robot. Why do we need such a thing? Again, it sounds like more churn. It's really annoying when I'm working on something important that gets derailed by pointless churn. Churn also makes it harder to backport patches to earlier kernels.