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: <aQ2jsZjRLqo8mvha@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 09:45:53 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
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 10:06:16AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> 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.

Okay, I won't object. But so far the patch taken as is, please fold the changes
you mention in it (will require rebase, but personally I don't care, all
depends on your workflow, followup is also fine to me).

And thanks for taking care of this!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko