WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 3140c156e919b0f5fad5c5f6cf7876c39d1d4f06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peng Hao peng.hao2@zte.com.cn Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:15:32 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning
fix a "warning: no previous prototype".
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Peng Hao peng.hao2@zte.com.cn Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini pbonzini@redhat.com
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c index 8f108131d85d..b2ff74b12ec4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c @@ -7943,7 +7943,7 @@ int kvm_task_switch(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 tss_selector, int idt_index, } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_task_switch);
-int kvm_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs) +static int kvm_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs) { if ((sregs->efer & EFER_LME) && (sregs->cr0 & X86_CR0_PG)) { /*
On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
Paolo
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 02:46:01PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"?
I want to fix "normal" build warnings, ones that show up with out having to override any options. That way we catch real problems if they show up. To try to fix up warnings that no one will ever see is just pointless for stable trees.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 17/04/2018 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"?
This should be -Wimplicit, which is enabled by -Wall.
Paolo
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:10:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 17/04/2018 14:54, Greg KH wrote:
There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"?
This should be -Wimplicit, which is enabled by -Wall.
ah, yet-another-W-option that should never be enabled :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On 17/04/2018 14:19, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
There are people compiling with -Werror. You can omit it, but really I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.
Paolo
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org
-
Paolo Bonzini