[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110301145649.GB28609@a1.tnic>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:56:49 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
bp@...64.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:20:50PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:35:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >On Monday 28 February 2011, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> My intention was not to have multiple levels of warnings because then
> >> you have to go and enable the different levels and have to remember
> >> which level you used last, etc, etc.
> >
> >I wasn't suggesting more than two, so the two would have very distinct
> >definitions:
> >
> >W=1: Warnings that we would like to fix all over the tree, patches to
> > remove these are always welcome and you can build the entire kernel
> > with it. Once they are all fixed, we can make the warnings the default.
> >
> >W=2: Warnings that we know we don't always want to fix, meant for what
> > you describe here -- you build a single file and decide what to
> > do based on common sense.
> >
>
> Right, this makes sense. Borislav, could you implement this?
Yeah, I could try to come up with a sensible choice for mutual-exclusive
sets of -W.. options. Any preferences?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists