From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935712Ab0B0VaQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:30:16 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:48480 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934887Ab0B0VaL (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:30:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:29:41 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Eric Paris cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] notification: including fanotify In-Reply-To: <1267218869.10582.12.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1267218869.10582.12.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Eric Paris wrote: > > This tree has the part of the notification changes which have existed > for better than a year in linux-next. They finish the inotify->fsnotify > transition and rip out the old inotify in-kernel interface. It > implements fanotify as a notifier only. I was going to pull this, but (a) that "notifier only" part seems to be incorrect. It has at least the Kconfig part of the "let's also allow fanotify to do security checks. (b) the compile has obviously never been tested with any modern gcc version. I get tons of warnings after the pull, like In file included from fs/notify/fsnotify.h:6, from fs/notify/fsnotify.c:28: include/linux/fsnotify.h: In function ‘fsnotify_oldname_init’: include/linux/fsnotify.h:313: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘kstrdup’ differ in signedness include/linux/string.h:118: note: expected ‘const char *’ but argument is of type ‘const unsigned char *’ include/linux/fsnotify.h:313: warning: pointer targets in return differ in signedness In file included from fs/notify/fsnotify.h:6, from fs/notify/group.c:28: which is totally unacceptable. I'm not going to merge code that adds warnings like these. You can argue whether the warning is really something gcc should warn about or not, but it really doesn't matter. Adding lots of noisy warnings is unacceptable, and I'm upset that you even pushed something to me with apparently _zero_ testing (or a total disregard for a clean compile). Grr. Linus