From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753133Ab2LEVey (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:34:54 -0500 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:54030 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752131Ab2LEVew (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:34:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 21:39:44 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , Andreas Mohr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Shaohua , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken Message-ID: <20121205213944.0d27a3f2@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20121206075721.18c0c05aa767b330f47d77eb@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20121205070901.GA12123@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20121205142935.GA12119@liondog.tnic> <20121205152756.5afec12c@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121205153121.GA28556@liondog.tnic> <20121205154749.2af4ef36@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121206075721.18c0c05aa767b330f47d77eb@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > While I appreciate your confidence, I don't notice quite a few new > warnings (because there are so many of them already :-(). Is there some > reason to not turn this on in our "normal" builds? Does it produce many > false positives? What compiler version is required? I've not seen any false positives from it yet. Unlike some of the variable related ones it seems pretty solid. > I also currently don't carry patches that only ever appear in linux-next > (well, not intentionally anyway). I assume it would require a patch to > the Makefile(s) to turn this on. Yes. I guess it belongs to the build scripts maintainers ? Alan