Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent MAILHOL <> | Date | Mon, 7 Mar 2022 23:06:06 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() |
| |
On Mon. 7 Mar 2022 at 22:40, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM Alexander Lobakin > <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> wrote: > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:08 +0200 > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Vincent Mailhol > > > <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > This pattern is harmless but because it occurs in header files > > > > (example find_first_bit() from linux/find.h [1]) and because of the > > > > include hell, the macro GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() is accountable for 31% > > > > (164714/532484) of all warnings when compiling all modules at W=2 > > > > level. > > > > Nice catch, thanks! I wanted to submit the very same fix, but > > postponed it for some reason, and now here we are. > > > > > Have you fixed W=1 warnings? > > > Without fixing W=1 (which makes much more sense, when used with > > > WERROR=y && COMPILE_TEST=y) this has no value. > > > > How is this connected? > > By priorities. > I don't see much value in fixing W=2 per se if the code doesn't compile for W=1.
*My code* compiles for W=1. For me, fixing this W=2 in the next in line if speaking of priorities.
I do not understand why I should be forbidden to fix a W=2 in the file which I am maintaining on the grounds that some code to which I do not care still has some W=1.
> > When I do `make W=2 path/to/my/code`, I want to see the actual code > > problems, not something that comes from the include files. > > When I do `make W=2 path/to/new/code/from/lkml`, I want to see the > > actual new warnings, not something coming from the includes. > > It's much easier to overlook or miss some real warnings when the > > stderr is being flooded by the warnings from the include files. > > I'm aware there are some scripts to compare before/after, but I > > don't want to use them just because "this has to value". > > I rephrased above. > > > I don't want to do `make W=2 KCFLAGS='-Wno-shadow -Wno-type-limits'` > > because then I'm not able to spot the actual shadow or type limit > > problems in my/new code. > > I fixed several `-Wshadow` warnings previously in the include files > > related to networking, and *nobody* said "this has no value" or > > NAKed it. And `-Wshadow` has always been in W=2. > > Yes, because people rarely enable COMPILE_TEST + WERROR. > To be clear, my comment is given in that scope.
And my comments are given in a different scope: a developer who wants to solve the issue for his *own* file without being spammed.
Yours sincerely, Vincent Mailhol
| |