From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: josh@joshtriplett.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: core: Quiet W=1 warnings for unused vars and static functions Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:27:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20141006222756.GA1497@cloud> References: <1412632298.2916.42.camel@joe-AO725> <20141006.175612.1709169088283433326.davem@davemloft.net> <1412633064.2916.46.camel@joe-AO725> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com To: Joe Perches Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1412633064.2916.46.camel@joe-AO725> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 03:04:24PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 17:56 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Joe Perches > > Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 14:51:38 -0700 > > > > > Reduce noise when compiling W=1. > [] > > BTW, this patch reminds me that if people think there are > > subdirectories where we can turn on things like -Werror in the > > networking I would be very happy to apply such patches. > [] > > Things like net/core/ for example should be doable for sure. > > I don't have any significant opposition to -Werror, but > I think there are real arguments _against_ using -Werror. > > I think the primary one is new compiler versions have a > tendency to add new warnings for various things that can > unnecessarily and unpredictably break the build. -Werror is a bad idea, even on a per-directory basis. However, -Werror=specific-warning is a great idea. We should add that for high-value warnings that have been entirely eliminated in a directory. - Josh Triplett