Messages in this thread | | | From | Miguel Ojeda <> | Date | Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:32:38 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] Compiler Attributes: remove CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK |
| |
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:38 PM 'Matthias Urlichs' via Clang Built Linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > If your change to a function breaks its callers, it's your job to fix
No function has changed. This patch enables a warning (that for some reason is an error in the case of Guenter).
Even if this was a hard error, the same applies: the function hasn't changed. It just means callers never tested with `CONFIG_ENABLE_MUST_CHECK` for *years*.
> the callers proactively instead of waiting for "as they come" bug > reports. (Assuming, of course, that you know about the breakage. Which > you do when you tell us that the bad pattern can simply be grepped for.)
No, *we don't know about the breakage*. The grep was for the particular function Guenter reported, and done to validate his concern.
If you want to manually inspect every caller of every `__must_check` function, or to write a cocci patch or a clang-tidy check or similar (that would be obsolete as soon as `__must_check` is enabled), you are welcome to do so. But a much better usage of our time would be letting machines do their job.
> If nothing else, that's far more efficient than [number_of_callers] > separate patches by other people who each need to find the offending > change, figure out what to change and/or who to report the problem to, > and so on until the fix lands in the kernel.
This change is not in Linus' tree, it is on -next.
> Moreover, this wouldn't leave the kernel sources in a non-bisect-able > state during that time.
Again, the change is in -next. That is the point: to do integration testing and let the bots run against it.
Cheers, Miguel
| |