lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] linux/bits.h: fix -Wtype-limits warnings in GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK()
On Tue. 8 Mar 2022 at 01:33, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:06 PM Vincent MAILHOL
> <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > On Mon. 7 Mar 2022 at 22:40, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM Alexander Lobakin
> > > <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:46:08 +0200
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 7:36 PM Vincent Mailhol
> > > > > <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > Have you fixed W=1 warnings?
> > > > > Without fixing W=1 (which makes much more sense, when used with
> > > > > WERROR=y && COMPILE_TEST=y) this has no value.
> > > >
> > > > How is this connected?
> > >
> > > By priorities.
> > > I don't see much value in fixing W=2 per se if the code doesn't compile for W=1.
> >
> > *My code* compiles for W=1. For me, fixing this W=2 in the next in line
> > if speaking of priorities.
>
> > I do not understand why I should be forbidden to fix a W=2 in the
> > file which I am maintaining on the grounds that some code to which
> > I do not care still has some W=1.
>
> It's not forbidden. I said something different.
>
> Whatever, thank you for doing it, perhaps we will have less noise in W=2 case.

Great! So does it mean you are withdrawing your NAK?
Or do you still have concern on the patch itself?


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-08 13:24    [W:0.219 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site