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 C6BBE3FD3 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF84960F12; Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:51:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1631530295; bh=IhPIOl/NMzmrDUdQKEmqfIrz63UGwWOSS7/ZZTB+y0Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=GlRcHrWvyTlfET/uSqrfMr4HviMxaajNjqPm7yNSwGqV3rPiaepZNfvg6vJv0YJJF JZ6N8P/cODT+bI7R7rdqlhe/hratbkSowmt56+vYba/WMgbTXjWDDCO6iVfYGeqtUW 395/rvJ8KL756rVGr1g6tD7ADX4qcz2iqFxRYkPk= Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 12:51:33 +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> <20210913100230.GB11752@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: <20210913100230.GB11752@amd> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:02:30PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > 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. > > Well, everyone _wants_ to see clean builds... unless the price is too > high. > > > 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... > > You clearly can't backport this patch, but for 5.16-stable, you'll > have it in, and now warnings are same as errors... and I don't believe > that's good idea for stable. I do, it will force us to keep these trees clean over time. And it will be in 5.15, not 5.16 :) Worst case, we disable it in 4 years when gcc 15 or so generates so many errors we can't resolve them in this old kernel. thanks, greg k-h