linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v2] MFD for v5.9

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]

Message-ID: <20200817081431.GQ4354@dell>
Date:   Mon, 17 Aug 2020 09:14:31 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] MFD for v5.9

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:42 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the new pull request.  It has been tested; locally, by
> > TuxBuild and the Intel 'kernel test robot' [0].  Please consider this for
> > addition into v5.9.  All of these patches have also soak tested in
> > -next for a considerable amount of time.
> 
> I'm extremely annoyed by this all, but I've pulled this.
> 
> Please just *STOP* doing any W=1 fixes (and most definitely W=2 ones -
> many of those warnings are just plain garbage and indicate more about
> the compiler than they do about the code) if you can't then make damn
> sure that the warnings that actually matter are always *ALWAY* taken
> care of.
> 
> I absolutely abhor warnings in the default build, just because they
> only result in people ignoring them. Which is exactly what happened
> bvecause you then tried to care about the more-or-less worthless W=1
> ones.
> 
> So a clean build is really important to me. And developers who don't
> check and follow up on warnings in the normal build are something that
> pisses me off no end.
> 
> Now something like 25 commits are pointlessly rebased just because you
> didn't check warnings properly.

Your point is clear.

Allowing a W=0 warning into my pull-request was a genuine mistake
(most of us are only human after all).  It will be treated as a
learning point, safeguards will be put into place at my end and this
situation should not be repeated in the future.

I shall continue with my W=1 push (not going to touch W=2s however).
It's understandable that to you W=0s are paramount, but as long as
none are introduced then fixing up W=1s can only help to improve the
code-base (not withstanding 'type-limits' of course!) and ensure it's
more in sync/aligned with itself [thinking API documentation warnings
here]).

Thanks for pulling though.  It is appreciated.

Apologies again for the fuss.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog