Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Wed, 10 May 2006 14:11:54 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 16:44 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2006, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > There's no code increase when you init something to itself . I could > > convert all the instance of the warning, that I've investigated, to a > > system like this . I think it would be a benefit so we could clearly > > identify any new warnings added over time, and quiet the ones we know > > aren't real errors . > > > > However, from all the responses I'd imagine a patch like this wouldn't > > get accepted .. > > > > I really don't see why it couldn't be added. What's the problem with it? > > I mean, I see lots of advantages, and really no disadvantages.
We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover up and real error , but that seems pretty unlikely .. Maybe I'll get motivated while your sleeping ..
Daniel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |