[ Adding some subsystem maintainers ] On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:06 AM Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > But hopefully most cases are just "people haven't cared enough" and > > easily fixed. > > We'll see. For my testbed I disabled the new configuration flag > for the time being because its primary focus is boot tests, and > there won't be any boot tests if images fail to build. Sure, reasonable. I've checked a few of the build errors by doing the appropriate cross compiles, and it doesn't seem bad - but it does seem like we have a number of really pointless long-standing warnings that should have been fixed long ago. For example, looking at sparc64, there are several build errors due to those warnings now being fatal: - drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_pool.c:386 This is a type mismatch error. It looks like __fls() on sparc64 returns 'int'. And the ttm_pool.c code assumes it returns 'unsigned long'. Oddly enough, the very line after that line does "min_t(unsigned int" to get the types in line. So the immediate reason is "sparc64 is different". But the deeper reason seems to be that ttm_pool.c has odd type assumptions. But that warning should have been fixed long ago, either way. Christian/Huang? I get the feeling that both lines in that file should use the min_t(). Hmm? - drivers/input/joystick/analog.c:160 #warning Precise timer not defined for this architecture. Unfortunate. I suspect that warning just has to be removed. It has never caused anything to be fixed, it's old to the point of predating the git history. Dmitry? - at least a couple of stringop-overread errors. Attached is a possible for for one of them. The stringop overread is odd, because another one of them is fs/qnx4/dir.c: In function ‘qnx4_readdir’: fs/qnx4/dir.c:51:32: error: ‘strnlen’ specified bound 48 exceeds source size 16 [-Werror=stringop-overread] 51 | size = strnlen(de->di_fname, size); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ but I'm not seeing why that one happens on sparc64, but not on arm64 or x86-64. There doesn't seem to be anything architecture-specific anywhere in that area. Funky. Davem - attached patch compiles cleanly for me, but I'm not sure it's necessarily the right thing to do, and I didn't check the code generation. Maybe it screws up. Can somebody test on sparc64 and perhaps think about it more than I did? Linus