linux-kernel - Re: kbuild - introduce support for subdir-ccflags-y

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f73f7ab80904182017n7f27f49ck48ba200deb99388a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:17:44 -0400
From:	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: kbuild - introduce support for subdir-ccflags-y

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 05:07:50PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:51:59PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> > > The typical use cases are an architecture or a subsystem that
>> > > decide to cover all files with -Werror.
>> > > Today alpha, mips and sparc uses -Werror in almost all their
>> > > Makefile - with subdir-ccflag-y it is now simpler to do so
>> > > as only the top-level directories needs to be covered.
>> >
>> > Hmm, this won't make sense for ARM.  We have things like #warning
>> > and deprecated functions in machine specific headers, and adding
>> > -Werror to the whole of arch/arm/ will result in these causing
>> > builds to fail.
>>
>> This is optional - if you dont want it, you dont set it.
>
> Please read _all_ of my mail, particularly the bit where it talks about
> it being useful for a certain subset.

It's my impression that on x86 it's a config option whether or not to
build with -Werror.  You could do the exact same thing with an
internal inverted-logic CONFIG_ARM_ALLOW_WARNINGS option and make all
the boards triggering warnings "select ARM_ALLOW_WARNINGS".  Then have
a user-visible config option "ARM_USER_ALLOW_WARNINGS" which also
selects the internal option.  That adds some additional kconfig-level
documentation on which subarch combos need some love.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/