linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/sti: mark symbols static where possible

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2016 13:46:28 +0100
From:   Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Abriou <vincent.abriou@...com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, xie.baoyou@....com.cn,
        "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ML dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sti: mark symbols static where possible

On 8 September 2016 at 10:56, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:35:17 AM CEST Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 7 September 2016 at 12:05, Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > We get 2 warnings when building kernel with W=1:
>> As you're going through DRM I was wondering if you have a rough number
>> of warnings we get at the various W levels 1,2,...
>
> I've looked at the W=1 warnings overall, and the count I got a
> month ago was 648 warnings for drivers/gpu/::
>
>     471 -Werror=missing-prototypes
>      12 -Werror=type-limits
>     124 -Werror=unused-but-set-variable
>      41 -Werror=unused-const-variable=
>
> vs for the whole kernel
>
>    2033 -Werror=missing-prototypes
>      58 -Werror=suggest-attribute=format
>     167 -Werror=type-limits
>    1398 -Werror=unused-but-set-variable
>    1526 -Werror=unused-const-variable=
>
> but that was after I had already fixed some of the other warnings
> locally. It shouldn't be hard to fix all of them for any given
> subsystem, often a single line change gets rid of a number
> of individual warnings.
>
Considering the LOC in the kernel, the number are quite small. Still a
fair bit to go.

> My basic idea however is not to do it by subsystem but instead
> do it one warning at a time for the entire kernel and then enable
> that warning by default without W=1.
>
Makes perfect sense. Thanks Arnd !

Keep up the good work gents.

Regards,
Emil