From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787F0C4CEC5 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:59:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ml01.01.org (ml01.01.org [198.145.21.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 463592089F for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:59:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="nIkoamXc" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 463592089F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=roeck-us.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93399202E2902; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::541; helo=mail-pg1-x541.google.com; envelope-from=groeck7@gmail.com; receiver=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org Received: from mail-pg1-x541.google.com (mail-pg1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::541]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C6C2020D31A for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x541.google.com with SMTP id c17so7639897pgg.4 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=fbWWNj6jxXYYNBiMWtbkbdqPv5Uo41BE2vW7jgQy9yM=; b=nIkoamXcdsZgqEDTMxSqZfXHWqb/2CXWw7STkZmWdv8GqMUcvweldqkTMGBQz104F3 FO0h6Mfm2ALayhSV8nduPsSc/oNNmBiH0lZf3CYwWH9J5pIgJcKC7A1ERXtTwWfNM5vS W4uUY9OU2+vCEv3l+nsh91zBSCtT6QKyHoHhkL3OFo41L1wU1LSfge1JQM4yoRgpnLoh GWNZs67+6bb0jJTufFw1oiCeuhguIoFtgQvVBRjo11Jw8iKV1wTL+mNuHNFH/h5lT4Ph dlPXuyttHqMt17OcBfmaJ2gSnyJrUgnrttFsRn/IIw9ifrS8he6SBdcpWRgoPHx76W6r pvWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=fbWWNj6jxXYYNBiMWtbkbdqPv5Uo41BE2vW7jgQy9yM=; b=HHhrO1613cDN1llpdDOy6ZpMwcVlPZSCGAUCb6GwqxXWl2aRU45TJecTiDc5Sp9KaW AyMM4rI3txQIvAwaIKwQNLu04r0xEhJ4MN+WnUcTcn/CiySAIsGRVpKyn2TDpVgrLAHp 9rXPNHheelh6zRdQMszdqk+dB0P9pX4vZTeD4xutNGa8Xf9pJJfo0CvHMZeXfqrSiQGa pv5LehKDPPU9cfdkyUBkir0z/dy+Zce049g2EC71K7jdtcX/JLm10Nu60zQeAc1HS8qP jgRo2lCDx+wPU7PVdz5MgduiR1sJQjFoqCTM+nT2qC2v+Pen9vBpVHgR2SHRhbHYCLft 9q7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWEbuDErTbi9Xs0H9M2Vnkkn9JT4Uc8zqX7bCMIn+26DFzkau/B yW/FGIYqzXhgHXWAeF2u9iY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw+hH/klJhUfGJZPpZyFTdzWL2P0k9B3pz/IyxTU+dkOaVThfbCWMZT0Twl9NzNad28EY13Kw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:e21a:: with SMTP id a26mr57031115pfi.156.1568386753921; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s76sm27192710pgc.92.2019.09.13.07.59.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:59:11 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH v2 0/3] Maintainer Entry Profiles Message-ID: <20190913145911.GA21121@roeck-us.net> References: <156821692280.2951081.18036584954940423225.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <6fe45562-9493-25cf-afdb-6c0e702a49b4@acm.org> <44c08faf43fa77fb271f8dbb579079fb09007716.camel@perches.com> <74984dc0-d5e4-f272-34b9-9a78619d5a83@acm.org> <20190913105446.2b7af558@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190913105446.2b7af558@coco.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Linux-nvdimm developer list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Bart Van Assche , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Matthew Wilcox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steve French , Dmitry Vyukov , "Tobin C. Harding" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:54:46AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Fri, 13 Sep 2019 08:56:30 -0400 > Matthew Wilcox 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. > I used to do that as well, but gave up on it since it resulted in lots of warnings from generic kernel include files. I have not tried recently, so maybe that is no longer the case. > There's a few warnings at EDAC, but they all seem easy enough to be > fixed. > Acceptance depends on the maintainer, really. I had patches rejected when trying to fix W=1 warnings, so I no longer do it. > So, from my side, I'm all to make W=1 default. > Seems to me that would require a common agreement that maintainers are expected to accept fixes for problems reported with W=1. Guenter > Regards, > Mauro > > > > > On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 16:01 Bart Van Assche, 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 > > > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss > > > > > > > Thanks, > Mauro > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm