linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] MIPS changes

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

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiC_B8R6th+83vKwGT1H-8vtFrmMg+1mK_P8n3VeWAWRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:18:19 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MIPS changes

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:07 AM Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com> wrote:
>
> Another issue is that there are currently 'expected' warnings dotted
> through the tree for various defconfigs

This is why I refuse to have _any_ warnings at all in my tree during
the merge window.

If you have expected warnings, you will ignore the new and valid ones.
So the only acceptable situation is "no warnings".

In honesty, I actually do have one warning in my tree:

  samples/vfs/test-statx.c:24:15: warning: ‘struct foo’ declared
inside parameter list will not be visible outside of this definition
or declaration
     24 | #define statx foo
        |               ^~~

but because it's in the sample code, it pretty much never gets rebuilt
for me unless I basically do a "git clean" to get rid of everything,
so I don't normally see it for any normal pull.

So I've ignored that one warning, although I've actually been tempted
to just remove the sample because of it.

Adding David and Al to the cc just in case they have some simple fixup
for it that is likely to work across different user headers.

I considered just adding a

     struct foo;

declaration, but the whole thing is incredibly ugly.

                  Linus