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  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]
Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 09:16:22 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>
Cc:     kvalo@...eaurora.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/32] Set 2: Rid W=1 warnings in Wireless

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, Christian Lamparter wrote:

> On 2020-08-21 09:16, Lee Jones wrote:
> > This set is part of a larger effort attempting to clean-up W=1
> > kernel builds, which are currently overwhelmingly riddled with
> > niggly little warnings.
> > 
> I see that after our discussion about the carl9170 change in this
> thread following your patch: <https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/14/291>
> 
> you decided the best way to address our requirements, was to "drop"
> your patch from the series, instead of just implementing the requested
> changes. :(

No, this is "set 2", not "v2".

The patch you refer to is in the first set.

Looks like I am waiting for your reply [0]:

[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/8/18/334

> > There are quite a few W=1 warnings in the Wireless.  My plan
> > is to work through all of them over the next few weeks.
> > Hopefully it won't be too long before drivers/net/wireless
> > builds clean with W=1 enabled.
> 
> Just a parting note for your consideration:
> 
> Since 5.7 [0], it has become rather easy to also compile the linux kernel
> with clang and the LLVM Utilities.
> <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/llvm.html>
> 
> I hope this information can help you to see beyond that one-unamed
> "compiler" bias there... I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Never used them.

GCC has always worked well for me.  What are their benefits over GCC?

I already build for 5 architectures locally and a great deal more
(arch * defconfigs) using remote testing infrastructures.  Multiplying
them without very good reason sounds like a *potential* waste of
already limited computation resources.

> Christian
> 
> [0] <https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-5.7-Kbuild-Easier-LLVM>

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists