Re: [Nouveau] [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

2020-10-20 Thread John Haxby
> On 19 Oct 2020, at 20:42, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > We probably should add all 3 to W=2 builds (wrapped in cc-option). > I've filed https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1180 to > follow up on. It looks as though the URL mangling has been fixed. If anyone sees that specific

Re: [Nouveau] [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

2020-10-18 Thread James Bottomley
On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 20:16 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 12:13:35PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 19:59 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > clang has a number of useful, new

Re: [Nouveau] [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

2020-10-18 Thread James Bottomley
On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 19:59 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote: > > clang has a number of useful, new warnings see > >

Re: [Nouveau] [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

2020-10-18 Thread Joe Perches
On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 19:59 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote: > > clang has a number of useful, new warnings see > >

Re: [Nouveau] [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

2020-10-18 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote: > clang has a number of useful, new warnings see > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!Krxz78O3RKcB9JBMVo_F98FupVhj_jxX60ddN6tKGEbv_cnooXc1nnBmchm-e_O9ieGnyQ$ > Please

Re: [Nouveau] [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks

2020-10-18 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 12:13:35PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 19:59 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote: > > > clang has a number of useful, new warnings see > > >