Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:56:30 -0400 Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> escreveu:
> It's easy enough to move the kernel-doc warnings out from under W=1. I only > out them there to avoid overwhelming us with new warnings. If they're > mostly fixed now, let's make checking them the default. Didn't try doing it kernelwide, but for media we do use W=1 by default, on our CI instance. There's a few warnings at EDAC, but they all seem easy enough to be fixed. So, from my side, I'm all to make W=1 default. Regards, Mauro > > On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 16:01 Bart Van Assche, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 9/12/19 8:34 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:31 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > >> On 9/11/19 5:40 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > >>> * The patch must compile without warnings (make C=1 > > CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__") > > >>> and does not incur any zeroday test robot complaints. > > >> > > >> How about adding W=1 to that make command? > > > > > > That's rather too compiler version dependent and new > > > warnings frequently get introduced by new compiler versions. > > > > I've never observed this myself. If a new compiler warning is added to > > gcc and if it produces warnings that are not useful for kernel code > > usually Linus or someone else is quick to suppress that warning. > > > > Another argument in favor of W=1 is that the formatting of kernel-doc > > headers is checked only if W=1 is passed to make. > > > > Bart. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss > > Thanks, Mauro
