From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Rohit Maheshwari <rohitm@chelsio.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] Makefile.extrawarn: Add symbol for W=1 warnings for today
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:31:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmdfwWsRtJHtJ16B0RMyoxUi1587OKnyunQd5gfwmnGsA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201002014411.GG4067422@lunn.ch>
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 6:44 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 04:09:43PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:12 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a movement to try to make more and more of /drivers W=1
> > > clean. But it will only stay clean if new warnings are quickly
> > > detected and fixed, ideally by the developer adding the new code.
> > >
> > > To allow subdirectories to sign up to being W=1 clean for a given
> > > definition of W=1, export the current set of additional compile flags
> > > using the symbol KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930. Subdirectory Makefiles can
> > > then use:
> > >
> > > subdir-ccflags-y := $(KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930)
> > >
> > > To indicate they want to W=1 warnings as defined on 20200930.
> > >
> > > Additional warnings can be added to the W=1 definition. This will not
> > > affect KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930 and hence no additional warnings will
> > > start appearing unless W=1 is actually added to the command
> > > line. Developers can then take their time to fix any new W=1 warnings,
> > > and then update to the latest KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_<DATESTAMP> symbol.
> >
> > I'm not a fan of this approach. Are DATESTAMP configs just going to
> > keep being added? Is it going to complicate isolating the issue from a
> > randconfig build? If we want more things to build warning-free at
> > W=1, then why don't we start moving warnings from W=1 into the
> > default, until this is no W=1 left? That way we're cutting down on
> > the kernel's configuration combinatorial explosion, rather than adding
> > to it?
>
> Hi Nick
>
> I don't see randconfig being an issue. driver/net/ethernet would
> always be build W=1, by some stable definition of W=1. randconfig
> would not enable or disable additional warnings. It to make it clear,
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200930 is not a Kconfig option you can select. It
> is a Makefile constant, a list of warnings which define what W=1 means
> on that specific day. See patch 1/2.
>
> I see a few issues with moving individual warnings from W=1 to the
> default:
>
> One of the comments for v1 of this patchset is that we cannot
> introduce new warnings in the build. The complete tree needs to clean
> of a particularly warning, before it can be added to the default list.
> But that is not how people are cleaning up code, nor how the
> infrastructure is designed. Those doing the cleanup are not take the
> first from the list, -Wextra and cleanup up the whole tree for that
> one warnings. They are rather enabling W=1 on a subdirectory, and
> cleanup up all warnings on that subdirectory. So using this approach,
> in order to move a warning from W=1 to the default, we are going to
> have to get the entire tree W=1 clean, and move them all the warnings
> are once.
Sorry, to be more specific about my concern; I like the idea of
exporting the W=* flags, then selectively applying them via
subdir-ccflags-y. I don't like the idea of supporting W=1 as defined
at a precise point in time via multiple date specific symbols. If
someone adds something to W=1, then they should need to ensure subdirs
build warning-free, so I don't think you need to "snapshot" W=1 based
on what it looked like on 20200930.
>
> People generally don't care about the tree as a whole. They care about
> their own corner. The idea of fixing one warning thought the whole
> tree is 'slicing and dicing' the kernel the wrong way. As we have seen
> with the recent work with W=1, the more natural way to slice/dice the
> kernel is by subdirectories.
I'm not sure I agree with this paragraph. ^ If a warning is not
enabled by default implicitly, then someone would need to clean the
tree to turn it on. It's very messy to apply it on a child directory,
then try to work up. We've done multiple tree wide warning cleanups
and it's not too bad.
>
> I do however understand the fear that we end up with lots of
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_<DATESTAMP> constants. So i looked at the git history
> of script/Makefile.extrawarn. These are historically the symbols we
> would have, if we started this idea 1/1/2018:
>
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20200326 # CLANG only change
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20190907
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20190617 # CLANG only change
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20190614 # CLANG only change
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20190509
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20180919
> KBUILD_CFLAGS_W1_20180111
>
> So not too many.
It's a useful visualization. I still would prefer W=1 to get enabled
by default if all of the CI systems have flushed out the existing
warnings. That way we have one less combination of things to test;
not more.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-05 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-01 1:12 [RFC PATCH net-next v2 0/2] driver/net/ethernet W=1 by default Andrew Lunn
2020-10-01 1:12 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] Makefile.extrawarn: Add symbol for W=1 warnings for today Andrew Lunn
2020-10-01 23:09 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-10-02 1:44 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-10-02 12:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-10-02 12:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-10-02 13:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-10-12 1:00 ` Masahiro Yamada
2020-10-12 8:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-10-05 17:31 ` Nick Desaulniers [this message]
2020-10-05 19:49 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-10-05 20:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-10-05 21:08 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-10-11 13:03 ` Masahiro Yamada
2020-10-12 8:11 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-10-16 14:12 ` Andrew Lunn
[not found] ` <CAK8P3a1nBhmf1PQwHHbEjiVgRTXi4UuJAbwuK92CKEbR=yKGWw@mail.gmail.com>
2020-10-17 14:57 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-10-02 9:04 ` kernel test robot
2020-10-02 11:08 ` kernel test robot
2020-10-01 1:12 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] driver/net/ethernet: Sign up for W=1 as defined on 20200930 Andrew Lunn
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=CAKwvOdmdfwWsRtJHtJ16B0RMyoxUi1587OKnyunQd5gfwmnGsA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rohitm@chelsio.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).