Skip to contentSkip to conversation

WTF: patch "[PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree?

PATCH [email protected] 2 participants 6 messages Apr 17, 2018

Subsystems (3)
Stable branch x86 KVM x86
lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author maintainer
#0 lore raw

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

Quoted 1 line

From 3140c156e919b0f5fad5c5f6cf7876c39d1d4f06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Peng Hao <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 09:15:32 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] kvm: x86: fix a compile warning

fix a "warning: no previous prototype".

Cc [email protected]
Signed-off-by Peng Hao <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c +1 -1
index 8f108131d85d..b2ff74b12ec4 100644
@@ -7943,7 +7943,7 @@ int kvm_task_switch(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 tss_selector, int idt_index,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_task_switch);
 
-int kvm_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs)
+static int kvm_valid_sregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_sregs *sregs)
 {
 	if ((sregs->efer & EFER_LME) && (sregs->cr0 & X86_CR0_PG)) {
 		/*
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · On 17/04/2018 14:19, [email protected] wrote:

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Paolo

author maintainer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 11 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 9 lines · On 17/04/2018 14:19, [email protected] wrote:

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

Quoted 5 lines

There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"?

I want to fix "normal" build warnings, ones that show up with out having to override any options. That way we catch real problems if they show up. To try to fix up warnings that no one will ever see is just pointless for stable trees.

thanks,

greg k-h

maintainer
#3 lore raw
Quoted 6 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines

There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"?

This should be -Wimplicit, which is enabled by -Wall.

Paolo

author maintainer
#4 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Paolo Bonzini
Quoted 6 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 5 lines

There are people compiling with -Werror. But really, I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards]. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Are you sure -Werror shows this? And it's not just a sparse "warning"?

This should be -Wimplicit, which is enabled by -Wall.

ah, yet-another-W-option that should never be enabled :)

thanks,

greg k-h

maintainer
#5 lore raw
In reply to [email protected]
Quoted 9 lines · On 17/04/2018 14:19, [email protected] wrote:

The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.16-stable tree.

I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to <[email protected]> and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.

There are people compiling with -Werror. You can omit it, but really I sometimes wonder if stable-kernel-rules.rst should be perused in the same way as the GNU coding standards. Most patches that are "auto-selected" these days are (at least for KVM) exactly the "This could be a problem..." type of thing that is singled out as _not_ stable-worthy.

Paolo