[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121206075721.18c0c05aa767b330f47d77eb@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:57:21 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken
Hi Alan,
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:47:49 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> And yes btw we should turn this option on in -next, and get these sort of
> things out of the tree for good. More importantly it'll mean anyone
> adding another one gets a whine on the spot.
While I appreciate your confidence, I don't notice quite a few new
warnings (because there are so many of them already :-(). Is there some
reason to not turn this on in our "normal" builds? Does it produce many
false positives? What compiler version is required?
I also currently don't carry patches that only ever appear in linux-next
(well, not intentionally anyway). I assume it would require a patch to
the Makefile(s) to turn this on.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists