Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Pull network and Patch Acceptance Consistency

Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2019-06-19T15:00:25Z

Em Wed, 19 Jun 2019 10:33:23 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> escreveu:

> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:56 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:31:15AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Also, usually, the bots don't build with W=1, as, on most subsystems,
> > > this cause lots of warnings[1].
> > >
> > > [1] On media, we have zero warnings with W=1.
> > >
> >
> > We could ask the kbuild devs if they would consider making W=1 a per
> > tree option.
>
> No need to ask, just add a Kconfig which sets additional cflags for
> you for your tree and your good. The usual combinatorial testing will
> discover the new warnings. That's at least what we do for i915.ko
> (including -Werror). Gets the job done.

While this works, having a W=1 per tree would, IMHO, work better, as,
as new warnings get added to W=1, we'll get those for free.

-

I don't like the idea of having -Werror being automatically added, as
this may cause problems when people try to compile with a different
compiler version - or on some weird architectures.

Specially on drivers that build with COMPILE_TEST[1], depending on the
architecture they're built, false-positive warnings rise, specially
on unusual architecture with has different defines for some
arch-specific typedefs (signed/unsigned, different integer type,
usage or not of volatile, a different address space, etc).

[1] On media, our goal is that everything should build with
COMPILE_TEST.

Thanks,
Mauro