Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings

[Rustad, Mark D]

On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:06:27PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote:
>> Well, the whole series of patches that I made definitely went too far
>> - only the first 5 out of about 30 have been posted, but if we can
>> make some progress on generating fewer warnings out of the include
>> files, I think it would be helpful.
> 
> Helpful for what? Those are W=2 warnings which are disabled in the
> default build.

It is helpful for using the warnings to look for problems or even just risks.

>> The macros can serve a useful purpose, but they should not be widely
>> used. When to use them is definitely a judgement call. If the macros
>> are accepted, it may be worth adding a checkpatch.pl warning for
>> adding a DIAG_*IGNORE macro.
> 
> Right, so add the macros and tell people *not* to use them. That won't
> fly.

Right now the number of warnings generated when using W=2 simply tells people to never use W=2. That severely limits the value of a useful tool. A checkpatch warning doesn't mean to never do that, just that it needs a critical look and justification. That is certainly true of every patch I made that uses those macros.

-- 
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail