Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs"

[Ingo Molnar]

* Roland Dreier <rdreier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx4/mcg.c b/drivers/net/mlx4/mcg.c
>  > index c83f88c..d1230a8 100644
>  > --- a/drivers/net/mlx4/mcg.c
>  > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx4/mcg.c
>  > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ int mlx4_multicast_attach(struct mlx4_dev *dev, struct mlx4_qp *qp, u8 gid[16],
>  >  
>  >  	if (block_mcast_loopback)
>  >  		mgm->qp[members_count++] = cpu_to_be32((qp->qpn & MGM_QPN_MASK) |
>  > -						       (1 << MGM_BLCK_LB_BIT));
>  > +						       (1U << MGM_BLCK_LB_BIT));
> 
> This is fixing a warning caused by a gcc bug 
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37261) which is fixed 
> upstream.  The change is rather inoffensive but on the other hand I'm 
> not sure what our policy for dealing with version-specific warning 
> bugs in gcc should be.

the full commit is below - i researched it when i created it and indeed 
it seemed like an incorrect warning.

OTOH, there should be a well-defined work flow to keep this all 
manageable: once we know why a warning triggers and it has been 
categorized by a human, we should get rid of the warning in some way. 

Applying this patch as-is would be one option. Annotating it with a 
specific gcc version would be overkill i think. Ignoring it would be 
bad, because there's real value in standardizing on a "no warnings" 
build output. Many new warnings get introduced because people do not 
notice new warnings amongst the very high baseline noise of the kernel 
build.

What do you think?

	Ingo

--------->