On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:02 AM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> On 12/20/20 10:18 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> With a change like this, I'd have expected that there is a coccinelle
> script or similar to ensure that claims made in the commit message
> are true.
It is only a warning -- the compiler
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:20 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay.
No problem!
> Now I sent out the fix for lantiq_etop.c
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1355595/
I saw it, thanks for the Cc!
> The reason of the complication was
> I was trying to merge the following
On 12/20/20 10:18 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:27 AM Miguel Ojeda
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>> Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you
>>> need to work to resolve it, not argue about it. Otherwise
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:27 AM Miguel Ojeda
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you
> > need to work to resolve it, not argue about it. Otherwise it needs to
> > be dropped/reverted.
>
> Nobody
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:38 PM 'Matthias Urlichs' via Clang Built
Linux wrote:
>
> If your change to a function breaks its callers, it's your job to fix
No function has changed. This patch enables a warning (that for some
reason is an error in the case of Guenter).
Even if this was a hard
Miguel Ojeda wrote:
I think we can fix them as they come.
If your change to a function breaks its callers, it's your job to fix
the callers proactively instead of waiting for "as they come" bug
reports. (Assuming, of course, that you know about the breakage. Which
you do when you tell us
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM Greg KH wrote:
>
> Because if you get a report of something breaking for your change, you
> need to work to resolve it, not argue about it. Otherwise it needs to
> be dropped/reverted.
Nobody has argued that. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite: "So I
think
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 03:58:20PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > The key here is "if nobody complains". I would argue that it is _your_
> > responsibility to do those builds, and not the reponsibility of others
> > to do it for you.
>
> Testing allmodconfig for a popular architecture, agreed, it
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 1:55 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> Witz komm raus, Du bist umzingelt.
Please, explain this reference. :-)
> The key here is "if nobody complains". I would argue that it is _your_
> responsibility to do those builds, and not the reponsibility of others
> to do it for you.
On 12/12/20 9:04 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:18 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>
>> This patch results in:
>>
>> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4a/smp-shx3.c: In function 'shx3_prepare_cpus':
>> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4a/smp-shx3.c:76:3: error: ignoring return value of
>> 'request_irq'
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:18 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> This patch results in:
>
> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4a/smp-shx3.c: In function 'shx3_prepare_cpus':
> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4a/smp-shx3.c:76:3: error: ignoring return value of
> 'request_irq' declared with attribute 'warn_unused_result'
>
>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 04:33:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Revert commit cebc04ba9aeb ("add CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK").
>
> A lot of warn_unused_result warnings existed in 2006, but until now
> they have been fixed thanks to people doing allmodconfig tests.
>
> Our goal is to always
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:34 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> Revert commit cebc04ba9aeb ("add CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK").
>
> A lot of warn_unused_result warnings existed in 2006, but until now
> they have been fixed thanks to people doing allmodconfig tests.
>
> Our goal is to always enable
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:34 AM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> Revert commit cebc04ba9aeb ("add CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK").
>
> A lot of warn_unused_result warnings existed in 2006, but until now
> they have been fixed thanks to people doing allmodconfig tests.
>
> Our goal is to always enable
On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 04:33:35AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Revert commit cebc04ba9aeb ("add CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK").
>
> A lot of warn_unused_result warnings existed in 2006, but until now
> they have been fixed thanks to people doing allmodconfig tests.
>
> Our goal is to always
Revert commit cebc04ba9aeb ("add CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK").
A lot of warn_unused_result warnings existed in 2006, but until now
they have been fixed thanks to people doing allmodconfig tests.
Our goal is to always enable __must_check where appropriate, so this
CONFIG option is no longer needed.
16 matches
Mail list logo
