Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> > > > James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> > > > warnings were getting out of control.
> > > 
> > > eh.  They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
> > > 
> > > > The list is here:
> > > 
> > > Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> > > detect and fix?
> > > 
> > > Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
> > > compilation testing.
> > 
> > Because if there already exists more than a handful peoples' eyes glaze
> > over and ignore "just one more warning"
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Unless they break the build, or if there currently are 0 and they make
> > it non-zero, people seem not to care....sad.  Probably the same for
> > sparse/checkpatch, "there's plenty already, I can't be bothered to look"
> 
> And before, the actual warnings depended a lot on the kernel
> configuration, so making the build break was less of an option.
> If Sam's improved section mismatch detection turns out to work fine, we
> can fix the issues and start to enable breaking of the build in case of
> warnings.
> 
> BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
> drivers/isdn/. Doesn't look unsurmountable compared to the number of
> other compile warnings fixed during the last few years ;-)

Can you try the patchset I will post in a minute.
Would be nice to know if you see additional warnings as I got
isdn clean here with x86 - 64 bit - allyesconfig.

	Sam