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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 56D47C432C0 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 04:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7AE20678 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 04:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727405AbfKZECG (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:02:06 -0500 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:29153 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726947AbfKZECG (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 23:02:06 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Nov 2019 20:02:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,244,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="409847404" Received: from pl-dbox.sh.intel.com (HELO intel.com) ([10.239.13.128]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Nov 2019 20:02:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:09:08 +0800 From: Philip Li To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: Dennis Zhou , Chen Rong , kbuild@lists.01.org, clang-built-linux , kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, David Sterba , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , Omar Sandoval , kernel-team@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] btrfs: add the beginning of async discard, discard workqueue Message-ID: <20191126040908.GE26032@intel.com> References: <201911220351.HPI9gxNo%lkp@intel.com> <20191125185931.GA30548@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20191126014209.GB21240@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:47:00PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:35 PM Philip Li wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:39:08AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:59 AM Dennis Zhou wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:27:43PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > Below is a 0day bot report from a build w/ Clang. Warning looks legit, > > > > > can you please take a look? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah thanks for this! Yeah that was a miss when I switched from flags -> > > > > an enum and didn't update the declaration properly. I'll be sending out > > > > a v4 as another fix for arm has some rebase conflicts. > > > > > > > > Is there a way to enable so I get these emails directly? > > > > > > + Rong, Philip > > > > > > The reports have only been sent to our mailing list where we've been > > > manually triaging them. The issue with enabling them globally was > > > that the script to reproduce the warning still doesn't mention how to > > > build w/ Clang. Hi Nick, i forgot one question. Is it still expected to use latest clang to build test? Any possibility the issue is related to clang compiler itself? Thanks > > Thanks Nick for continuous caring on this. One thing we initially worry > > is how to avoid duplicated reports to developer, like the one that can > > be same as gcc's finding. We haven't found a way to effectively handle > > this. > > Thanks for maintaining an invaluable tool. > > How would the reports be duplicated? Does 0day bot build with GCC, > then rebuild with Clang? > > Regardless, does it matter? If I make a mistake, and get two build > failure emails from 0day bot instead of one, does it matter? Sometimes > developers may just get one, as some warnings are unique to each > compiler. Maybe it runs the risk of folks ignoring the email if the > volume is too much, but do authors generally ignore 0day bot emails? > (I'd hope not). > > > > > > > > > In general the reports have been high value (I ignore most reports > > > with -Wimplicit-function-declaration, which is the most frequent as it > > > shows the patch was not compile tested at all). > > Do we mean the report with -Wimplicit-function-declaration can be duplicated > > to gcc, so we can ignore them to avoid duplication to developer? > > Many of the warnings GCC has Clang does as well. > -Wimplicit-function-declaration is the most common warning I see in > triage, which developers would see regardless of toolchain had they > compiled first before pushing. It might be interesting to see maybe > the intersection or common flags between GCC and Clang, and only email > Clang reports for warnings unique to clang? I think CFLAGS can even > be passed into make invocations so you could do: > $ make CC=clang KBUILD_CFLAGS= -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -Wno-...> > such that any resulting warnings were unique to Clang. I'd expect > such a list to quickly get stale over time though. > > > > > > > > > Rong, Philip, it's been a while since we talked about this last. Is > > > there a general timeline of when these reports will be turned on > > > globally? Even if the directions to reproduce aren't quite right, > > For the timeline, it's not decided due to the duplication concern. We tend > > to look into next year after other priorities are solved for this year. > > > > > generally there's enough info in the existing bugs where authors can > > > rewrite their patch without even needing to rebuild with Clang (though > > > having correct directions to reproduce would be nice, we could wait > > > until someone asked for them explicitly). > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > ~Nick Desaulniers > > > > -- > Thanks, > ~Nick Desaulniers