lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Are Section mismatches out of control?
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 02:30:44PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 03:03 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:47:18 +0100 Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> > > > James said in a related posting that the Section mismatch
> > > > warnings were getting out of control.
> > >
> > > eh. They're easy - the build system tells you about them!
> > >
> > > > The list is here:
> > >
> > > Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> > > detect and fix?
> > >
> > > Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
> > > compilation testing.
> >
> > Because if there already exists more than a handful peoples' eyes glaze
> > over and ignore "just one more warning"
>
> Yes.
>
> > Unless they break the build, or if there currently are 0 and they make
> > it non-zero, people seem not to care....sad. Probably the same for
> > sparse/checkpatch, "there's plenty already, I can't be bothered to look"
>
> And before, the actual warnings depended a lot on the kernel
> configuration, so making the build break was less of an option.
> If Sam's improved section mismatch detection turns out to work fine, we
> can fix the issues and start to enable breaking of the build in case of
> warnings.
>
> BTW, on m68k I get ca. 160 of them. Most seem to originate in
> drivers/isdn/. Doesn't look unsurmountable compared to the number of
> other compile warnings fixed during the last few years ;-)

Can you try the patchset I will post in a minute.
Would be nice to know if you see additional warnings as I got
isdn clean here with x86 - 64 bit - allyesconfig.

Sam


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-01 14:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans