On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:20:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:50:15PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt are long deprecated, mark them as __deprecated
> > > > on i386.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Problem is, nobody's fixing these things. There's no point in adding spam
> > > to the kernel build unless it actually gets us some action, and I haven't
> > > seen any evidence that it does.
> > >
> > > Stick it under CONFIG_I_AM_A_DEVELOPER_WHO_HAS_TIME_TO_FIX_STUFF.
> >
> > I'm used to the fact that every single BROKEN_ON_SMP driver generates
> > tons of such warnings that I don't see why these warnings should be any
> > bad...
>
> I frequently (daily) get patches which spit new warnings. Sometimes
> (~weekly) those warnings indicate real bugs in the patch.
>
> I believe that the main reason for this is that the developers simply don't
> notice the new warning amongst all the noise.
There are few areas in the kernel that spit that many warnings that you
might not see new ones .
The developers not noticing the warnings might often be the same
developers who send patches that don't compile...
> > If you dislike the warnings, you could move the whole __deprecated und a
> > config option.
> >
> > In the case of virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt I had the hope that e.g. the ATM
> > drivers that seem to have an active maintainer might get fixed.
>
> That would be good - but perhaps a better approach would be to send pointed
> emails to the maintainer. Or to merge lameo patches to remove
> virt_to_bus() so he has to fix it for real ;)
In the case of virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt there are stil many places in the
kernel using it, and several of them are well maintained.
IMHO the warnings are the best solution for getting a vast amount fixed,
and then it's time to think about the rest.
> > But I'm not religious regarding this issue as long as you accept my
> > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration patch...
>
> Problem is, I'm the sucker who takes the brunt of that change. It'd be
> best to fix up the warnings _before_ adding the make-it-break patch.
-Werror-implicit-function-declaration doesn't add new warnings, it turns
a specific kind of warnings that can indicate nasty runtime errors into
compile errors.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
