From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:33120 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727606AbeIYRjZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:39:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:32:14 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Joe Perches Cc: Sasha Levin , "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 Message-ID: <20180925113214.GA1783@kroah.com> References: <20180924113113.268650190@linuxfoundation.org> <20180924113123.002918395@linuxfoundation.org> <6f7ca3c205bada768c3918b1feacbbd5ce23a64d.camel@perches.com> <20180924175902.GB19402@kroah.com> <6d6f31c87b0c9b1a551d352439183c8c9c4df04c.camel@perches.com> <20180924223952.GA9157@sasha-vm> <20180925085558.GA22609@kroah.com> <086cc82aed26b082fbe5eefc0eeae2ec634e4a1a.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <086cc82aed26b082fbe5eefc0eeae2ec634e4a1a.camel@perches.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:11:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-09-25 at 10:55 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:39:53PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > 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. > > > > No warnings is great, > > I believe that is not necessarily true. For me, it is essencial. As proof of this, I found an actual bug in a patch that added a warning to the build. If my scripts hadn't shown that we had gone from 0 to 1 warnings, then I would have missed that. So I want to keep the stable trees at 0 warnings if at all possible, for x86-64 at the least. > Change to a new compiler version and new warnings could be > added somewhat arbitrarily. That's true, and is why I am stuck at gcc7 at the moment, as gcc8 does horrid things to older stable kernels :) thanks, greg k-h