On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:03 PM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:24 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:37 PM Rikard Falkeborn
> > > <rikard.falkeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Den fre 26 juni 2020 08:32Linus Torvalds
> > > > <torva...@linux-foundation.org> skrev:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > I'll just say no and point to this email next time someone complains
> > > > instead.
> > >
> > > "No" is not constructive here. People can be annoyed with warning
> > > messages, but the real issue here are the various CI systems which
> > > send a lot of spam because of that. As a maintainer I would need to
> > > drop CI in order to see a good patch. If Linus considers that warning
> > > useless, then probably you can change your patch to do what he
> > > proposed.
> >
> > How about moving that warning from W=1 to W=2? Generally speaking
> > I'd expect W=1 warnings to be in a category of "it's generally better to
> > address this in the code, but we can't turn it on by default because the
> > output gets too noisy", as opposed to W=2 meaning "this sometimes
> > finds a real problem, but fixing the warning often makes code worse."
>
> It would work for me if it had been
> a) documented (I didn't check if it had been already done, though);
> b) understood by all CIs in the same way (see a) as well :-).
I checked the 'make help' output, which describes them as
make W=n [targets] Enable extra build checks, n=1,2,3 where
1: warnings which may be relevant and do not occur too often
2: warnings which occur quite often but may still be relevant
3: more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored
Multiple levels can be combined with W=12 or W=123
which is less specific than the interpretation I had in mind but
I think still fits a).
Arnd
