linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] compiler_types: Warn about unused static inline functions on second

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: <20251106170616.GB1693433@ax162>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 10:06:16 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
	Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] compiler_types: Warn about unused static inline
 functions on second

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 06:01:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 08:16:49AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > and we should
> > probably drop the sentence about removing __inline_maybe_unused entirely
> > since people such as Peter will never want this behavior by default. I
> > do not mind doing it myself if I take it.
> 
> But future is uncertain, it might be that GCC also gains this and it won't
> confuse anyway as it might become a truth (no more such warnings in the code)
> at some point.

The reality of the situation is that moving this warning to W=2 is
basically the same as just turning it off entirely since building with
W=2 is not a common endeavor for the majority of folks actually writing
kernel code, so the number of warnings will just continue to grow. At
that point, there is very little reason to believe that we would be able
to go from W=2 to enabled by default at some point in the future since
people already do not like it enabled at W=1 where it is not as
impactful as enabled by default. As a result, I feel like the comment
genuinely serves no purpose. If GCC were to change its behavior to
match clang, I feel like kernel folks would still want the current GCC
behavior.

Cheers,
Nathan