On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 04:11:38AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2018-09-25 at 10:55 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:39:53PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:03:25AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 19:59 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 09:38:26AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 13:34 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 3.18-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
Why should this sort of change be applied to a stable release?
Originally I was just going to drop this as it's not fixing something.
But it might be, if that macro is used in a if() statement, or something like that, it could be doing something unintended.
No it couldn't. An empty macro is equivalent to a single statement.
So I don't feel like auditing all 500+ instances where this is used, it's easier to just accept the patch.
It's not a bug fix.
This question came up a few months ago. Greg suggested that we should be pulling in warning fixes to get the stable kernels warning-free similar to upstream.
The reasoning behind it was similar to the "no warnings" reasoning of upstream: there might be real issues hiding in the sea of "harmless" warnings, so we want to get rid of all of them to catch real issues.
No warnings is great,
I believe that is not necessarily true.
For me, it is essencial.
As proof of this, I found an actual bug in a patch that added a warning to the build. If my scripts hadn't shown that we had gone from 0 to 1 warnings, then I would have missed that.
So I want to keep the stable trees at 0 warnings if at all possible, for x86-64 at the least.
Change to a new compiler version and new warnings could be added somewhat arbitrarily.
That's true, and is why I am stuck at gcc7 at the moment, as gcc8 does horrid things to older stable kernels :)
thanks,
greg k-h