[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: automated warning notifications
    On 06/16/2012 02:17 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:

    > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:48:26AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
    >> On 06/15/2012 01:54 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
    >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 01:31:00AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 03:58:10PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:12:22AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
    >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 09:48:35AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
    >>>>>>> In an average working day, 1-2 build errors will be caught and email
    >>>>>>> notified. I guess there will be more sparse warnings if it's turned
    >>>>>>> on.
    >>>>>>> Perhaps the sparse warnings can be enabled, but only sent to the patch
    >>>>>>> author. If you and anyone else are interested, they could be sent to
    >>>>>>> some mailing list, too. One thing I'm sure is, we probably never want
    >>>>>>> to disturb the busy maintainers with these warnings.
    >>>>>> Eventually I think we will want to set up a mailing list for this or
    >>>>>> we will start sending duplicate messages.
    >>>>> Fair enough. How can we setup the mailing list? Once the list up, it
    >>>>> would be trivial for me to send sparse warnings out there.
    >>>> Rather than a mailing list, how about something like for
    >>>> sparse warnings?
    >>> It's much more trivial to send new build/sparse errors/warnings to a
    >>> list than to setup a website :-) As the errors come and go every day,
    >>> and they are mostly unstructured, it seems the mailing list would be a
    >>> more natural fit. People can search for known errors there and/or CC
    >>> fixes there.
    >>> Anyway, we just sent an request for creating
    >> and you will let us know when it has been created??
    > Well, the request has been rejected anyway..
    >> Although I had just as soon use an existing list, like
    >> kernel-janitors or kernel-testers.
    > From :
    > Some suggestions to kernel newbies:
    > avoid fixing compiler warnings because the goal is to fix the
    > CAUSE of the warnings (which is usually not obvious), not just
    > to make the warnings go away
    > Does that suggest the commit author be the best people to fix
    > warnings? The typical situation may be, the author is not aware of the
    > warnings at all: they are buried in the tedious output of make...

    It's a shame when a patch creates lots of warnings and they are
    ignored. I would suggest that the patch should not be merged. :)

    We should at least bring the warnings to the attention of the
    patch author. Sure, in some cases we (I) might make a patch that
    the author wouldn't want and would have better solutions for.
    That's OK. It happens often. It's part of how Linux development works.


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-16 20:21    [W:0.028 / U:6.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site