On Tue, Oct 10, 2023, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 11:04:18 +0300 Jani Nikula wrote: > > > If you do invest in build testing automation, why can't your automation > > > count warnings rather than depend on WERROR? I don't understand. > > > > Because having both CI and the subsystem/driver developers enable a > > local WERROR actually works in keeping the subsystem/driver clean of > > warnings. > > > > For i915, we also enable W=1 warnings and kernel-doc -Werror with it, > > keeping all of them warning clean. I don't much appreciate calling that > > anti-social. > > Anti-social is not the right word, that's fair. > > Werror makes your life easier while increasing the blast radius > of your mistakes. So you're trading off your convenience for risk > of breakage to others. Note that you can fix issues locally very > quickly and move on. Others have to wait to get your patches thru > Linus. > > > >> I disagree. WERROR simply doesn't provide the same coverage. E.g. it > > >> can't be > > >> enabled for i386 without tuning FRAME_WARN, which (a) won't be at all > > >> obvious to > > >> the average contributor and (b) increasing FRAME_WARN effectively > > >> reduces the > > >> test coverage of KVM i386. > > >> > > >> For KVM x86, I want the rules for contributing to be clearly documented, > > >> and as > > >> simple as possible. I don't see a sane way to achieve that with > > >> WERROR=y. > > > > The DRM_I915_WERROR config depends on EXPERT and !COMPILE_TEST, and to > > my knowledge this has never caused issues outside of i915 developers and > > CI. > > Ack, I think you do it right. I was trying to establish a precedent > so that we can delete these as soon as they cause an issue, not sooner.
So isn't the underlying problem simply that KVM_WERROR is enabled by default for some configurations? If that's the case, then my proposal to make KVM_WERROR always off by default, and "depends on KVM && EXPERT && !KASAN", would make this go away, no?
