From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:35249 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753048Ab1CANVs (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:21:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:20:50 +0800 From: =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks Message-ID: <20110301132050.GA24374@cr0.private> References: <20110221110322.GA9819@liondog.tnic> <201102282207.33489.arnd@arndb.de> <20110228213134.GA10825@liondog.tnic> <201103011235.00389.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103011235.00389.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Borislav Petkov , Sam Ravnborg , Michal Marek , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, bp@amd64.org On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:35:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >On Monday 28 February 2011, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> My intention was not to have multiple levels of warnings because then >> you have to go and enable the different levels and have to remember >> which level you used last, etc, etc. > >I wasn't suggesting more than two, so the two would have very distinct >definitions: > >W=1: Warnings that we would like to fix all over the tree, patches to > remove these are always welcome and you can build the entire kernel > with it. Once they are all fixed, we can make the warnings the default. > >W=2: Warnings that we know we don't always want to fix, meant for what > you describe here -- you build a single file and decide what to > do based on common sense. > Right, this makes sense. Borislav, could you implement this? Thanks.