From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99BA912B17E; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709676845; cv=none; b=fwJuemPcPcysfDf3Vu7rBN4XUAXMbSkqyeDXvtW2sfQYPX4mEsnqu78+fRKtsH5o+AAwPCvHC7OliTvIXWvOKQiNBAs3aeazyu7AshEVUri7whuoWFVDagOpP2xYH4GZZJLUtggvOp+dgS12t7n0gZ6pRMG9JeorjRxtY2urZGY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709676845; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Wg1yOxK1nVNYDzyYiT6yn8Qfew3WmNqQyzmb5xL2bp8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dBAVjTCP8tsTFTQp/zjeQwNvLJXAYR1vrQSXhfYN1A4fP+IlFrPJElzAnFdPiVQaDHUqgsuVLBXoAg676WaIRx2ijHarFuwL9oV+C+sBoPVv31kmSn++lOO+drvBsrNaauW9EAMQnStEC4z1LqOF4iMtOH8bt6CVZiJ3WV+xPjk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DMjyak1D; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DMjyak1D" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 710E2C433F1; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:14:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1709676845; bh=Wg1yOxK1nVNYDzyYiT6yn8Qfew3WmNqQyzmb5xL2bp8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DMjyak1DcC35R39kjuT1KsfnwtYMQvCp/Tspa20T5whG+f1hseD7ZfCc/tmp7hKzo O8e9+pDjdhoobSMnLwo4D9mCj+ktQi+x4+t/2iEmy7tz+P9tq1omnRAOH139Zv+Zuz uMAYuW4Bpign/wn9E9o9DcEopWHMWRTPVeF4Q9w1I7yOUbdDZOP32wi5QjNwrRhfO1 nAJ9kcYOs9G8ayjzR0ifI7xOHdGPNdL3uywB6qVocFw2xa3HjZOR+tlWqbGFRIqKVp t7NJMhRIynPfkz8Fun67GlG4dlw8h7G/vDexHRsifUoxyKy0HpGGljBafsOdpbC6qK NjFumDPyThqYw== Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:14:02 -0700 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Masahiro Yamada , Nicolas Schier , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , Yonghong Song , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, patches@lists.linux.dev, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Disable two Clang specific enumeration warnings Message-ID: <20240305221402.GA233379@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> References: <20240305-disable-extra-clang-enum-warnings-v1-1-6a93ef3d35ff@kernel.org> <57abd8e9-3177-4260-b423-38d5cdcda44e@app.fastmail.com> <20240305193015.GA1173426@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <5b4fa755-571e-4a99-8614-ca0df1db1563@app.fastmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5b4fa755-571e-4a99-8614-ca0df1db1563@app.fastmail.com> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:52:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 20:30, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:52:16AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:50 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 18:42, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > >> > > > >> > > As the warnings do not appear to have a high signal to noise ratio and > >> > > the source level silencing options are not sustainable, disable the > >> > > warnings unconditionally, as they will be enabled with -Wenum-conversion > >> > > and are supported in all versions of clang that can build the kernel. > >> > > >> > I took a look at a sample of warnings in an allmodconfig build > >> > and found a number that need attention. I would much prefer to > >> > leave these turned on at the W=1 level and only disable them > >> > at the default warning level. > >> > >> Sounds like these new diagnostics are very noisy. 0day bot sends > >> people reports at W=1. Perhaps W=2? > > It feels like this is not a great reason for moving it to W=2 > instead of W=1, but W=2 is still better than always disabling > it I think. > > Specifically, the 0day bot warns for newly added W=1 warnings > but not for preexisting ones, and I think there are other warnings > at the W=1 level that are similarly noisy to this one. > > > A number of subsystems test with W=1 as well and while opting into W=1 > > means that you are potentially asking for new warnings across newer > > compiler releases, a warning with this number of instances is going to > > cause a lot of issues (I think of netdev for example). > > I only see a handful of warnings in net (devlink, bpf) and > drivers/net (ethernet/{3com,amd8111e,funeth,hns,idpf,jme,mlx4} and > wireless/{iwlwifi,mt76,rtw88,rtw89}). > > These are also some of the ones that I think need a closer look. Fair enough, I have sent v2 that just moves these warnings to W=1. Cheers, Nathan