[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e96b89e1-0fd7-44c1-a0ed-cd40a5e7af67@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:12:03 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Philipp Stanner" <pstanner@...hat.com>,
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Ryusuke Konishi" <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"Bill Wendling" <morbo@...gle.com>, "Justin Stitt" <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Christian Brauner" <brauner@...nel.org>, "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"Thorsten Blum" <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] nilfs2: fix out-of-range warning
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024, at 16:21, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 15:30 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> This is ok, so just shut up that warning with a cast.
>
> nit:
> It's not a warning, but actually a compile error, right?
I build with CONFIG_WERROR=y, which turns all warnings
into errors. It's just a warning without that, and is
currently only enabled when building with 'make W=1',
though the point of my series is to have it always enabled.
> (no idea why they make that an error btw. Warning would be perfectly
> fine)
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> Should / could that be backported to stable kernels in case people
> start building those with clang-14?
It's clearly harmless and could be backported, but it
is not needed either since older kernels will keep the
option as part of W=1, not the default.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists