Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel_ddi.c:1481
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Jani Nikula wrote:
Being brutally honest, please write shorter reports and shorter emails to the lists.
The static analysis reports are welcome, but only when 1) we didn't already fix it in linux-next, or 2) it reveals an actual bug, not just a warning, warranting a backport.
That will be our policy. Lukas
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Jani Nikula wrote:
Being brutally honest, please write shorter reports and shorter emails to the lists.
The static analysis reports are welcome, but only when 1) we didn't already fix it in linux-next, or 2) it reveals an actual bug, not just a warning, warranting a backport.
That will be our policy.
Great! Also a few other things to be aware of when working with the Linux kernel community, and to try to answer some of your longer original email querstions: - don't scatter emails to tons of lists at the same time. If you use scripts/get_maintainer.pl on a file, it will tell you exactly who and what list to notify of an issue found. - when finding an issue, again, always check linux-next as that contains up to the past 3 months of work. Don't duplicate stuff that others have already done, as that doesn't help anyone out. - for stable kernel patches, please read: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html as to how to report a patch to be included in a stable kernel release (hint, just send the git hash to the list when it is in Linus's tree and ask for it to be included, as well as what trees you think it should be included in.) - If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take warning fixes in the stable tree. And even better yet, if you keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be wonderful. Hope this helps! greg k-h
+Knut, Fengguang On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
- If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take warning fixes in the stable tree. And even better yet, if you keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be wonderful.
So we can run sparse using 'make C=1' and friends, or other static analysis tools using 'make CHECK=foo C=1', as long as the passed command line params work. There was work by Knut to extend this make checker stuff [1]. Since mixing different HOSTCC's in a single workdir seems like a bad idea, I wonder how hard it would be to make clang work like this: $ make CHECK=clang C=1 Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang for static analysis of patches. BR, Jani. [1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.1... -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:44 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
+Knut, Fengguang
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
- If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take warning fixes in the stable tree. And even better yet, if you keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be wonderful.
So we can run sparse using 'make C=1' and friends, or other static analysis tools using 'make CHECK=foo C=1', as long as the passed command line params work. There was work by Knut to extend this make checker stuff [1]. Since mixing different HOSTCC's in a single workdir seems like a bad idea, I wonder how hard it would be to make clang work like this:
$ make CHECK=clang C=1
Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang for static analysis of patches.
Yes, definitely a natural addition to the set of tools supported by runchecks to also support using alternate compiler(s) as "checkers" - I guess the same would apply for people compiling with clang - that they don't accidentally generate warnings with gcc.. Thanks, Knut
BR, Jani.
[1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.1... 2.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com
participants (4)
-
Greg KH -
Jani Nikula -
Knut Omang -
Lukas Bulwahn