Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:05PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >One can ignore or one can fix...
> >I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch
> >warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time
> >complaining but failing to provide patches.
> 
> >	Sam - who expected more people to actually fix this stuff :-(
> 
> Well, with due respect, it's a bit presumptuous to add a bunch of 
> warnings to the kernel build (due to more strict checking), and then get 
> annoyed when people aren't jumping up and fixing this stuff immediately.

I did some testing and the new code does not emit warnings which were
not emitted before. But previously you had to use less typical
configurations to see them like HOTPLUG_CPU=y, HOTPLUG=n, gcc 3.3

> 
> There were no build complaints in 2.6.24 for my stuff (libata and 
> drivers/net) during my test builds, nor were there any for my 2.6.25-git 
> merge window pushes, nor were there any complaints when I last checked 
> Andrew's -mm tree.
> 
> So from our perspective, you dumped a lot of work in our laps from out 
> of the blue, getting irritated at us along the way.
> 
> Maybe we can resolve this in a more kinder, gentler, coordinated 
> fashion?  :)
It is the misinformation being spread that irritates me.
Thousand of hours, no real bugs found etc.

Anyway - that is all forgot tomorrow when we get the warning level down
to zero.
> 
> What could be done to prevent this sort of situation in the future? 
> Maybe add these checks to -mm, and then not push your strict checking 
> upstream until the build noise is reduced?

The good thing about getting it upstream is the additional attention.
If we do not get it down to acceptable levels I have no problems
turning off the section mismatch in minline but keep it enabled
in -mm.

	Sam