[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110427082555.GC5726@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:25:55 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1] kbuild: implement several W= levels
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 07:50:42PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
>
> Building a kernel with "make W=1" produce far too much noise
> to be usefull.
>
> Divide the warning options in three groups:
>
> W=1 - warnings that may be relevant and does not occur too often
> W=2 - warnings that occur quite often but may still be relevant
> W=3 - the more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored
>
> When building init/ on my box the levels produces:
>
> W=1 - 46 warnings
> W=2 - 863 warnings
> W=3 - 6496 warnings
>
> Many warnings occur from .h files so fixing one file may have a nice
> effect on the total number of warnings.
>
> With these changes I am actually tempted to try W=1 now and then.
> Previously there were just too much noise.
>
> Borislav:
>
> - make the W= levels exclusive
I do not see the point in this really. This is not what most people would
expect.
When you ask for more you get more - not something else.
We see it with verbose levels where -vv give more output than -v etc.
Anyway - the important thing is to keep the relevant warnings at W=1 level.
Which is independendt of this change.
So consider the input and decide - I do not want to make a fuzz about it.
Sam
--
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