From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-dm3nam03on0098.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.41.98]:40359 "EHLO NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726389AbeIYEoX (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:44:23 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Joe Perches CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Bart Van Assche , Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18 104/105] IB/nes: Fix a compiler warning Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:39:53 +0000 Message-ID: <20180924223952.GA9157@sasha-vm> References: <20180924113113.268650190@linuxfoundation.org> <20180924113123.002918395@linuxfoundation.org> <6f7ca3c205bada768c3918b1feacbbd5ce23a64d.camel@perches.com> <20180924175902.GB19402@kroah.com> <6d6f31c87b0c9b1a551d352439183c8c9c4df04c.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <6d6f31c87b0c9b1a551d352439183c8c9c4df04c.camel@perches.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:03:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 19:59 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:38:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 13:34 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > > 3.18-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let = me know. >> > >> > Why should this sort of change be applied to a stable release? >> >> Originally I was just going to drop this as it's not fixing something. >> >> But it might be, if that macro is used in a if() statement, or something >> like that, it could be doing something unintended. > >No it couldn't. >An empty macro is equivalent to a single statement. > >> So I don't feel like auditing all 500+ instances where this is used, >> it's easier to just accept the patch. > >It's not a bug fix. This question came up a few months ago. Greg suggested that we should be pulling in warning fixes to get the stable kernels warning-free similar to upstream. The reasoning behind it was similar to the "no warnings" reasoning of upstream: there might be real issues hiding in the sea of "harmless" warnings, so we want to get rid of all of them to catch real issues. So I was taking warning fixes even if they are of the harmless kind just to get rid of warnings in stable branches. -- Thanks, Sasha=