From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:33:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20140922203336.GF4709@pd.tnic> References: <1411140580-20909-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20140922153355.GB4510@pd.tnic> <20140922184049.GB4709@pd.tnic> <3199350A-89CE-4BE7-8FE4-CA8CE4F87622@intel.com> <20140922192152.GD4709@pd.tnic> <1411415057.2513.8.camel@jtkirshe-mobl.jf.intel.com> <20140922195737.GE4709@pd.tnic> <1411416573.2513.19.camel@jtkirshe-mobl.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:33015 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753128AbaIVUdl (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:33:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1411416573.2513.19.camel@jtkirshe-mobl.jf.intel.com> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Kirsher Cc: "Rustad, Mark D" , "sparse@chrisli.org" , "linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 01:09:33PM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > Sorry I am very frustrated at your response. You shouldn't be. Judging by your reply below it seems we do actually agree... mostly :-) > I am not saying that the proposed added MACRO is the best solution to > this issue. Several other maintainers have actually responded in a > similar manner to the macros being added and came back that the better > solution would be to fix the code so that the warnings do not occur in > the first place. Right, this would be optimal. > So I guess I was hoping for more of the response, that "let's fix this > the code so that the warnings do not appear in the first place". > > I agree with you completely that I do not like the idea of the MACROS > being added to silence these warnings. I just disagree that not doing > anything to fix the warnings is far worse. Ok, good, so we're on the same page here. > Why grep through 100,000 warnings, when we should be fixing the code to > prevent 100,000 warnings. Not saying that the MACRO is the best > solution, it is just a solution, in hopes that it spurs discussions like > this on how to properly fix the warnings. Not a discussion on how to > grep through the warnings and do nothing. There's only one thing I don't understand: why is so bad to grep through the warnings? I mean, sure, fixing them *without* jumping through hoops to do so is the optimal thing. But what's wrong with grepping through them? Btw, out of curiosity, what is your use case for staring at those W=2 warnings? In thinking about it, what we could also do is simply move the noisiest ones to W=3 or so, or even add another W= level. It'll be interesting to hear your use case though. AFAICT, this is the first time I hear of a more, let's say, serious use case of W= since we added the W= things a couple of years ago. :-) Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --