[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3199350A-89CE-4BE7-8FE4-CA8CE4F87622@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:59:23 +0000
From: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"sparse@...isli.org" <sparse@...isli.org>,
"linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings
On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:06:27PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>> Well, the whole series of patches that I made definitely went too far
>> - only the first 5 out of about 30 have been posted, but if we can
>> make some progress on generating fewer warnings out of the include
>> files, I think it would be helpful.
>
> Helpful for what? Those are W=2 warnings which are disabled in the
> default build.
It is helpful for using the warnings to look for problems or even just risks.
>> The macros can serve a useful purpose, but they should not be widely
>> used. When to use them is definitely a judgement call. If the macros
>> are accepted, it may be worth adding a checkpatch.pl warning for
>> adding a DIAG_*IGNORE macro.
>
> Right, so add the macros and tell people *not* to use them. That won't
> fly.
Right now the number of warnings generated when using W=2 simply tells people to never use W=2. That severely limits the value of a useful tool. A checkpatch warning doesn't mean to never do that, just that it needs a critical look and justification. That is certainly true of every patch I made that uses those macros.
--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists