From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754819AbaIVSk5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:40:57 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:45032 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754257AbaIVSky (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:40:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:40:49 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Rustad, Mark D" Cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , "sparse@chrisli.org" , "linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings Message-ID: <20140922184049.GB4709@pd.tnic> References: <1411140580-20909-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20140922153355.GB4510@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:06:27PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > The problem is that the kernel include files throw so many warnings > that it really discourages anyone from ever going through them, even > for a single driver. The warnings are far more valuable and usable > when known acceptable usages are silenced. You can always do one file only, for example: make W=2 arch/x86/kernel/msr.o > w.log 2>&1 > Well, the whole series of patches that I made definitely went too far > - only the first 5 out of about 30 have been posted, but if we can > make some progress on generating fewer warnings out of the include > files, I think it would be helpful. Helpful for what? Those are W=2 warnings which are disabled in the default build. > Already the patches that use them have triggered some activity that > has resulted in resolving warnings without use of the macros, and I > see that as much better than simply using the macros. > > The macros can serve a useful purpose, but they should not be widely > used. When to use them is definitely a judgement call. If the macros > are accepted, it may be worth adding a checkpatch.pl warning for > adding a DIAG_*IGNORE macro. Right, so add the macros and tell people *not* to use them. That won't fly. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --