[alsa-devel] Missing return check of of_property_read_*()

[Takashi Iwai]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:23:44 +0200,
Fengguang Wu wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:10:22AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hi Takashi,
> > 
> > > Fengguang, we've been discussing about the compile warnings that
> > > weren't caught by 0days.  It seems that it's triggered by !CONFIG_OF
> > > but with CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST=y.  Then I got warnings like:
> > > 
> > > sound/soc/codecs/cs35l32.c: In function ‘cs35l32_i2c_probe’:
> > > sound/soc/codecs/cs35l32.c:278:2: warning: ‘val’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > >   switch (val) {
> > >   ^
> > > sound/soc/codecs/cs35l32.c:272:15: note: ‘val’ was declared here
> > >   unsigned int val;
> > >                ^
> > > 
> > > The above was with gcc-5.1.1, but Lars told that he saw such a warning
> > > with gcc-4.9, too.
> > > 
> > > Could you add this kind of kconfig in your test?
> > 
> > It's covered through the lots of randconfig tests. However the problem
> > is, they are pretty old warnings and 0day ignores old warnings because
> > old warnings may well be intensionally ignored by people. On the
> > contrast, build errors can be re-reported if remain unfixed for long time.
> 
> That said, if as a maintainer you demand "all warnings should be quieted",
> I'll happily help you reminding the people who break the rule.
> 
> If it's a generally agreed rule by the maintainers, I'll be happy to
> help guarantee it kernel wide.

Well, there can be no black-or-white answer for this, as you know.
Indeed, what annoys most is repeatedly mail combs for minor or false
positive warnings.  But sometimes checking warnings is useful; when I
look through build warnings occasionally, it really hits real bugs
sometimes.

So this made me wonder whether we have a way to take a glance through
gathered compile warnings at once.  Are they archived and reachable?


thanks,

Takashi