On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:42:23PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:22:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:22:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:22:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:42:23PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:22:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:51:14PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 1 2008 12:10, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >On Friday 01 February 2008 11:47:18 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >> James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> >> warnings were getting out of control.
> >
> >My question is:
On Feb 1 2008 23:40, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>
>> checkpatch does not parse C, it uses heuristical regexes.
>>
>> That makes it very different from sparse or the section mismatch
>> finder which do not output false positives.
>
>Unfortunately I most correct you. Section mismatch checks seldoms
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:47:25PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> >> detect and fix?
> >>
> >> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:05PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >One can ignore or one can fix...
> >I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch
> >warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time
> >complaining but failing to provide patches.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:22:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
> > > drivers/isdn/. Doesn't look unsurmountable
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 22:47 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> >> detect and fix?
> >>
> >> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
>
On Feb 1 2008 12:10, Andi Kleen wrote:
>On Friday 01 February 2008 11:47:18 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
>> warnings were getting out of control.
>
>My question is: where are crashes? If the sections were
>really in such bad shape and since we
On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
>>
>> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
>> detect and fix?
>>
>> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
>> compilation testing.
>
>[...]
>Unless they break the build, or if
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
> > drivers/isdn/. Doesn't look unsurmountable compared to the number of
> > other compile warnings fixed during the last
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
One can ignore or one can fix...
I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch
warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time
complaining but failing to provide patches.
Sam - who expected more people to actually fix this stuff :-(
> Another way to look at it... All of a sudden, different from 2.6.24,
> kernel 2.6.25-git build spews so many warnings that I need to disable
> section mismatch checking completely, because there is so much noise
> that __normal build messages scroll off the screen__.
One can ignore or one
> Subject to someone _making_ it an issue, can't see it changing.
Actually I think that Sam's recent improvements to the section
mismatch detection should make it easy to get at least all of the
driver issues fixed -- the problem in the past was that many warnings
would only show with certain
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
The list is here:
Question is: why do
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> > warnings were getting out of control.
>
> eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:47 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> warnings were getting out of control.
What I actually said was that the churn in the source base caused by
these sectional mismatches was getting out of hand.
What I questioned
Hi,
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> detect and fix?
>
> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
> compilation testing.
How about adding an Untested-by tag for psychological
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > James said in a related posting that
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> > > warnings were getting out of control.
> >
> >
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> > warnings were getting out of control.
>
> eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about
On Friday 01 February 2008 11:47:18 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> warnings were getting out of control.
My question is: where are crashes? If the sections were
really in such bad shape and since we poison (and sometimes
even unmap) init after
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
> The list is here:
Question is: why do people keep adding
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
So I decided to take a closer look at current
status. Latest mainline with Adrian + mine fixes applied.
Target was x86 - an allyesconfig build.
I looked at the reported Section mismatch warnings per
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
So I decided to take a closer look at current
status. Latest mainline with Adrian + mine fixes applied.
Target was x86 - an allyesconfig build.
I looked at the reported Section mismatch warnings per
On Friday 01 February 2008 11:47:18 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
My question is: where are crashes? If the sections were
really in such bad shape and since we poison (and sometimes
even unmap) init after boot
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
The list is here:
Question is: why do people keep adding new
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
Hi,
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
detect and fix?
Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
compilation testing.
How about adding an Untested-by tag for psychological
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:47 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
What I actually said was that the churn in the source base caused by
these sectional mismatches was getting out of hand.
What I questioned was
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
The list is here:
Question is: why do
Subject to someone _making_ it an issue, can't see it changing.
Actually I think that Sam's recent improvements to the section
mismatch detection should make it easy to get at least all of the
driver issues fixed -- the problem in the past was that many warnings
would only show with certain
Another way to look at it... All of a sudden, different from 2.6.24,
kernel 2.6.25-git build spews so many warnings that I need to disable
section mismatch checking completely, because there is so much noise
that __normal build messages scroll off the screen__.
One can ignore or one can
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
One can ignore or one can fix...
I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch
warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time
complaining but failing to provide patches.
Sam - who expected more people to actually fix this stuff :-(
On Feb 1 2008 12:10, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Friday 01 February 2008 11:47:18 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
warnings were getting out of control.
My question is: where are crashes? If the sections were
really in such bad shape and since we poison
On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
detect and fix?
Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
compilation testing.
[...]
Unless they break the build, or if there currently
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 22:47 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
detect and fix?
Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
compilation
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:22:13PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
drivers/isdn/. Doesn't look unsurmountable compared
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:05PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
One can ignore or one can fix...
I decided to spend some of my friday on fixing section mismatch
warnings as I've got a bit irritated over people spending time
complaining but failing to provide patches.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:47:25PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
detect and fix?
Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
On Feb 1 2008 23:40, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
checkpatch does not parse C, it uses heuristical regexes.
That makes it very different from sparse or the section mismatch
finder which do not output false positives.
Unfortunately I most correct you. Section mismatch checks seldoms finds
what I
46 matches
Mail list logo
