Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:59:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121205155900.GB28556@liondog.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121205154749.2af4ef36@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:47:49PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Hillarious!
> > 
> > Andrew, would you please pick up Alan's patch? It clearly fixes an
> > ancient bug in the pnpacpi code.
> 
> And yes btw we should turn this option on in -next, and get these sort of
> things out of the tree for good. More importantly it'll mean anyone
> adding another one gets a whine on the spot.

Right,

when we added W=, we thought that one use case would be for devs to
use it when build-testing patches and check whether they're adding new
warnings.

However, (1) we need additional functionality in some script to be able
to test when the build log adds new warnings

and

(2) need someone to enforce it.

I think Geert is doing something like that but I'm not sure he's even
using W=.

Actually, it would be cool if something checked for new warnings, mapped
it back to the patch in linux-next adding that warning and then nags the
patch author endlessly until it is fixed.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.