[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140922192152.GD4709@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:21:52 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
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 Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:59:23PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
> It is helpful for using the warnings to look for problems or even just risks.
That's what W= builds are for.
> Right now the number of warnings generated when using W=2 simply tells
> people to never use W=2.
I showed you how to use W=2 and 3 for that matter - pipe the output into
a file and grep away.
> 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.
Sorry, if you need to shut up the compiler by adding code with the sole
purpose to not issue a warning for otherwise perfectly fine code, then
something's wrong with the whole endeavor in the first place.
There's a reason W= warnings are disabled in the default build.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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