From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95543FD6 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 476E06101B; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:46:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1631526375; bh=dMPPuDRHM65WeGIQqOCXIclpyoW2nZck2KjQpwVUN4w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cQqEUn16KT7WkEYmxHTy7B/eQWAeqGW5pAdU1YJIUxrX73wrEYkzkd4/XsBk45dv9 /3eEy3clln58uY1J7VfuI9PI0a9DJvOzZWrZQDm8kQ2pllOlM2+dP8lQknujg57Z3U 5gR0k1VUfhh663AUccm/9zIEpVca5vegVlIrLA3s= Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:46:13 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Pavel Machek Cc: Randy Dunlap , Linus Torvalds , Marco Elver , Nick Desaulniers , llvm@lists.linux.dev, LSM List , linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Guenter Roeck , Kees Cook , Mark Brown , Masahiro Yamada , Nathan Chancellor , Michal Marek , Andrew Morton , Vipin Sharma , Chris Down , Rasmus Villemoes , Daniel Borkmann , Vlastimil Babka , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "Enable '-Werror' by default for all kernel builds" Message-ID: References: <20210907183843.33028-1-ndesaulniers@google.com> <20210913093256.GA12225@amd> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210913093256.GA12225@amd> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:32:56AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > >> config WERROR > > >> bool "Compile the kernel with warnings as errors" > > >>- default y > > >>+ default COMPILE_TEST > > > > > >That seems reasonable. It very much is about build-testing. > > > > That and 2 more things IMO: > > > > a. having developers be responsible for build warnings, not just > > build errors > > > > b. having maintainers merge them more like they are build errors > > and not just some warnings that can be overlooked. > > > > I don't see enough of a. or b. :( > > Do we really want developers treat warnings as errors? When the code > is okay but some random version of gcc dislikes it... > > Plus, there's question of stable. We already get ton of churn there > ("this fixes random warning"). WERROR will only encourage that... I will not be backporting this patch to older stable kernels, but I _want_ to see stable builds build with no warnings. When we add warnings, they are almost always things we need to fix up properly. Over time, I have worked to reduce the number of build warnings in older stable kernels. For newer versions of gcc, sometimes that is impossible, but we are close... thanks, greg k-h