From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
George Burgess <gbiv@google.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:54:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cdbe9c56d73402be9e3b36a662c68515abcfae9.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdmhqq0DT5csX6W8xDF=nuXgJJ_Rtc2xf++=Q9uA4tZEvw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 11:51 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:42 -0700, 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.
> >
> > I suggest using W=1 as people that are doing cleanups
> > generally use that and not W=123 or any other style.
> >
> > Every other use of W= is still quite noisy and these
> > code warnings are relatively trivially to fix up.
>
> The 0day bot folks have enabled W=1 recently; hence the uptick in
> reports of -Wimplicit-function-declaration.
>
> If it gets added to W=1, it's effectively "on by default" for new code
> tested by 0day bot.
And that would mean these get fixed faster no?
Isn't that a good thing?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-20 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-17 16:09 [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks trix
2020-10-17 16:24 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2020-10-17 16:24 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-17 18:21 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-10-17 19:00 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-18 19:49 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Allow --fix removal of unnecessary break statements Joe Perches
2020-10-18 20:07 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-18 20:19 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 12:55 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-19 15:16 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 15:36 ` [PATCH V2] " Joe Perches
2020-10-17 21:01 ` [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks Dan Williams
2020-10-18 5:43 ` Greg KH
2020-10-18 14:04 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-19 19:42 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-10-19 23:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-10-20 14:09 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-20 8:47 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " John Haxby
2020-10-20 13:55 ` Tom Rix
2020-10-20 18:42 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-20 18:51 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-10-20 18:54 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2020-10-18 9:29 ` Hans de Goede
2020-10-18 18:59 ` [Ocfs2-devel] " Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-18 19:06 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-18 19:13 ` James Bottomley
2020-10-18 19:16 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-10-18 19:17 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0cdbe9c56d73402be9e3b36a662c68515abcfae9.camel@perches.com \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=gbiv@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).