[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181019080853.GA28610@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:08:53 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Leonardo BrĂ¡s <leobras.c@...il.com>,
lkcamp@...ts.libreplanetbr.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Adds -Wshadow=local on KBUILD_HOSTCFLAGS
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:41:31AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Adding -Wshadow to KBUILD_HOSTCFLAGS emits another warning in Kconfig.
> Of course, it is easy to fix.
> But, I just started to think this option is a kind of harsh...
What is more, if we added -Wshadow to KBUILD_HOSTCFLAGS, then there'll
be a difference in build options between host and target kernel in that
the host kernel build will be stricter wrt shadowing. Thus, it is a
maintainer decision, IMHO.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists