License cleanup: add SPDX GPL-2.0 license identifier to files with no license
Many source files in the tree are missing licensing information, which
makes it harder for compliance tools to determine the correct license.
By default all files without license information are under the default
license of the kernel, which is GPL version 2.
Update the files which contain no license information with the 'GPL-2.0'
SPDX license identifier. The SPDX identifier is a legally binding
shorthand, which can be used instead of the full boiler plate text.
This patch is based on work done by Thomas Gleixner and Kate Stewart and
Philippe Ombredanne.
How this work was done:
Patches were generated and checked against linux-4.14-rc6 for a subset of
the use cases:
- file had no licensing information it it.
- file was a */uapi/* one with no licensing information in it,
- file was a */uapi/* one with existing licensing information,
Further patches will be generated in subsequent months to fix up cases
where non-standard license headers were used, and references to license
had to be inferred by heuristics based on keywords.
The analysis to determine which SPDX License Identifier to be applied to
a file was done in a spreadsheet of side by side results from of the
output of two independent scanners (ScanCode & Windriver) producing SPDX
tag:value files created by Philippe Ombredanne. Philippe prepared the
base worksheet, and did an initial spot review of a few 1000 files.
The 4.13 kernel was the starting point of the analysis with 60,537 files
assessed. Kate Stewart did a file by file comparison of the scanner
results in the spreadsheet to determine which SPDX license identifier(s)
to be applied to the file. She confirmed any determination that was not
immediately clear with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Criteria used to select files for SPDX license identifier tagging was:
- Files considered eligible had to be source code files.
- Make and config files were included as candidates if they contained >5
lines of source
- File already had some variant of a license header in it (even if <5
lines).
All documentation files were explicitly excluded.
The following heuristics were used to determine which SPDX license
identifiers to apply.
- when both scanners couldn't find any license traces, file was
considered to have no license information in it, and the top level
COPYING file license applied.
For non */uapi/* files that summary was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 11139
and resulted in the first patch in this series.
If that file was a */uapi/* path one, it was "GPL-2.0 WITH
Linux-syscall-note" otherwise it was "GPL-2.0". Results of that was:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|-------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 930
and resulted in the second patch in this series.
- if a file had some form of licensing information in it, and was one
of the */uapi/* ones, it was denoted with the Linux-syscall-note if
any GPL family license was found in the file or had no licensing in
it (per prior point). Results summary:
SPDX license identifier # files
---------------------------------------------------|------
GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note 270
GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 169
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-2-Clause) 21
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 17
LGPL-2.1+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 15
GPL-1.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 14
((GPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR BSD-3-Clause) 5
LGPL-2.0+ WITH Linux-syscall-note 4
LGPL-2.1 WITH Linux-syscall-note 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) OR MIT) 3
((GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note) AND MIT) 1
and that resulted in the third patch in this series.
- when the two scanners agreed on the detected license(s), that became
the concluded license(s).
- when there was disagreement between the two scanners (one detected a
license but the other didn't, or they both detected different
licenses) a manual inspection of the file occurred.
- In most cases a manual inspection of the information in the file
resulted in a clear resolution of the license that should apply (and
which scanner probably needed to revisit its heuristics).
- When it was not immediately clear, the license identifier was
confirmed with lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
- If there was any question as to the appropriate license identifier,
the file was flagged for further research and to be revisited later
in time.
In total, over 70 hours of logged manual review was done on the
spreadsheet to determine the SPDX license identifiers to apply to the
source files by Kate, Philippe, Thomas and, in some cases, confirmation
by lawyers working with the Linux Foundation.
Kate also obtained a third independent scan of the 4.13 code base from
FOSSology, and compared selected files where the other two scanners
disagreed against that SPDX file, to see if there was new insights. The
Windriver scanner is based on an older version of FOSSology in part, so
they are related.
Thomas did random spot checks in about 500 files from the spreadsheets
for the uapi headers and agreed with SPDX license identifier in the
files he inspected. For the non-uapi files Thomas did random spot checks
in about 15000 files.
In initial set of patches against 4.14-rc6, 3 files were found to have
copy/paste license identifier errors, and have been fixed to reflect the
correct identifier.
Additionally Philippe spent 10 hours this week doing a detailed manual
inspection and review of the 12,461 patched files from the initial patch
version early this week with:
- a full scancode scan run, collecting the matched texts, detected
license ids and scores
- reviewing anything where there was a license detected (about 500+
files) to ensure that the applied SPDX license was correct
- reviewing anything where there was no detection but the patch license
was not GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note to ensure that the applied
SPDX license was correct
This produced a worksheet with 20 files needing minor correction. This
worksheet was then exported into 3 different .csv files for the
different types of files to be modified.
These .csv files were then reviewed by Greg. Thomas wrote a script to
parse the csv files and add the proper SPDX tag to the file, in the
format that the file expected. This script was further refined by Greg
based on the output to detect more types of files automatically and to
distinguish between header and source .c files (which need different
comment types.) Finally Greg ran the script using the .csv files to
generate the patches.
Reviewed-by: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
2017-11-01 17:07:57 +03:00
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
# ==========================================================================
# make W=... settings
#
2022-04-08 11:46:07 +03:00
# There are four warning groups enabled by W=1, W=2, W=3, and W=e
# They are independent, and can be combined like W=12 or W=123e.
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
# ==========================================================================
2018-01-11 12:22:29 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-disable-warning, packed-not-aligned)
2019-08-31 19:25:55 +03:00
# backward compatibility
KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN ?= $( KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS)
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
i f e q ( "$(origin W)" , "command line" )
2019-08-31 19:25:55 +03:00
KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN := $( W)
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
e n d i f
2019-08-31 19:25:55 +03:00
export KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
#
# W=1 - warnings which may be relevant and do not occur too often
#
2019-08-31 19:25:55 +03:00
i f n e q ( $( findstring 1, $ ( KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN ) ) , )
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wextra -Wunused -Wno-unused-parameter
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-declarations
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-format-attribute
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-prototypes
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wold-style-definition
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-include-dirs
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wunused-but-set-variable)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wunused-const-variable)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wpacked-not-aligned)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wstringop-truncation)
2019-05-09 09:46:35 +03:00
# The following turn off the warnings enabled by -Wextra
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-missing-field-initializers
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-sign-compare
2020-07-08 22:07:56 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-type-limits
2022-03-09 00:56:12 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-shift-negative-value
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
2022-12-06 07:07:31 +03:00
KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -Wundef
kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static inline functions for W=1 build
GCC and Clang have different policy for -Wunused-function; GCC does not
warn unused static inline functions at all whereas Clang does if they
are defined in source files instead of included headers although it has
been suppressed since commit abb2ea7dfd82 ("compiler, clang: suppress
warning for unused static inline functions").
We often miss to delete unused functions where 'static inline' is used
in *.c files since there is no tool to detect them. Unused code remains
until somebody notices. For example, commit 075ddd75680f ("regulator:
core: remove unused rdev_get_supply()").
Let's remove __maybe_unused from the inline macro to allow Clang to
start finding unused static inline functions. For now, we do this only
for W=1 build since it is not a good idea to sprinkle warnings for the
normal build (e.g. 35 warnings for arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig).
My initial attempt was to add -Wno-unused-function for no W= build
(https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1120594/)
Nathan Chancellor pointed out that would weaken Clang's checks since
we would no longer get -Wunused-function without W=1. It is true GCC
would catch unused static non-inline functions, but it would weaken
Clang as a standalone compiler, at least.
Hence, here is a counter implementation. The current problem is, W=...
only controls compiler flags, which are globally effective. There is
no way to address only 'static inline' functions.
This commit defines KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN[123] corresponding to W=[123].
When KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN1 is defined, __maybe_unused is omitted from
the 'inline' macro.
The new macro __inline_maybe_unused makes the code a bit uglier, so I
hope we can remove it entirely after fixing most of the warnings.
If you contribute to code clean-up, please run "make CC=clang W=1"
and check -Wunused-function warnings. You will find lots of unused
functions.
Some of them are false-positives because the call-sites are disabled
by #ifdef. I do not like to abuse the inline keyword for suppressing
unused-function warnings because it is intended to be a hint for the
compiler optimization. I prefer #ifdef around the definition, or
__maybe_unused if #ifdef would make the code too ugly.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
2019-09-07 05:52:36 +03:00
KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DKBUILD_EXTRA_WARN1
2014-08-01 08:08:25 +04:00
e l s e
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
# Some diagnostics enabled by default are noisy.
# Suppress them by using -Wno... except for W=1.
2018-10-30 16:26:33 +03:00
i f d e f C O N F I G _ C C _ I S _ C L A N G
2019-05-10 17:10:09 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-initializer-overrides
2022-09-01 20:59:13 +03:00
# Clang before clang-16 would warn on default argument promotions.
2022-09-19 20:08:28 +03:00
i f n e q ( $( call clang -min -version , 160000) , y )
2022-09-01 20:59:13 +03:00
# Disable -Wformat
Revert "Makefile.extrawarn: re-enable -Wformat for clang"
This reverts commit 258fafcd0683d9ccfa524129d489948ab3ddc24c.
The clang -Wformat warning is terminally broken, and the clang people
can't seem to get their act together.
This test program causes a warning with clang:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("%hhu\n", 'a');
}
resulting in
t.c:5:19: warning: format specifies type 'unsigned char' but the argument has type 'int' [-Wformat]
printf("%hhu\n", 'a');
~~~~ ^~~
%d
and apparently clang people consider that a feature, because they don't
want to face the reality of how either C character constants, C
arithmetic, and C varargs functions work.
The rest of the world just shakes their head at that kind of
incompetence, and turns off -Wformat for clang again.
And no, the "you should use a pointless cast to shut this up" is not a
valid answer. That warning should not exist in the first place, or at
least be optinal with some "-Wformat-me-harder" kind of option.
[ Admittedly, there's also very little reason to *ever* use '%hh[ud]' in
C, but what little reason there is is entirely about 'I want to see
only the low 8 bits of the argument'. So I would suggest nobody ever
use that format in the first place, but if they do, the clang
behavious is simply always wrong. Because '%hhu' takes an 'int'. It's
that simple. ]
Reported-by: Sudip Mukherjee (Codethink) <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2022-08-11 18:40:01 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-format
2022-09-01 20:59:13 +03:00
# Then re-enable flags that were part of the -Wformat group that aren't
# problematic.
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wformat-extra-args -Wformat-invalid-specifier
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wformat-zero-length -Wnonnull
# Requires clang-12+.
2022-09-19 20:08:28 +03:00
i f e q ( $( call clang -min -version , 120000) , y )
2022-09-01 20:59:13 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wformat-insufficient-args
e n d i f
e n d i f
2019-05-10 17:10:09 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-sign-compare
2020-03-11 22:41:21 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-disable-warning, pointer-to-enum-cast)
2020-03-26 22:41:55 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare
2022-02-03 02:05:16 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-disable-warning, unaligned-access)
2022-09-30 23:33:10 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-disable-warning, cast-function-type-strict)
2014-08-01 08:08:25 +04:00
e n d i f
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
e n d i f
#
# W=2 - warnings which occur quite often but may still be relevant
#
2019-08-31 19:25:55 +03:00
i f n e q ( $( findstring 2, $ ( KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN ) ) , )
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wdisabled-optimization
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wshadow
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wlogical-op)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wmissing-field-initializers
2020-07-08 22:07:56 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wtype-limits
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wmaybe-uninitialized)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wunused-macros)
kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static inline functions for W=1 build
GCC and Clang have different policy for -Wunused-function; GCC does not
warn unused static inline functions at all whereas Clang does if they
are defined in source files instead of included headers although it has
been suppressed since commit abb2ea7dfd82 ("compiler, clang: suppress
warning for unused static inline functions").
We often miss to delete unused functions where 'static inline' is used
in *.c files since there is no tool to detect them. Unused code remains
until somebody notices. For example, commit 075ddd75680f ("regulator:
core: remove unused rdev_get_supply()").
Let's remove __maybe_unused from the inline macro to allow Clang to
start finding unused static inline functions. For now, we do this only
for W=1 build since it is not a good idea to sprinkle warnings for the
normal build (e.g. 35 warnings for arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig).
My initial attempt was to add -Wno-unused-function for no W= build
(https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1120594/)
Nathan Chancellor pointed out that would weaken Clang's checks since
we would no longer get -Wunused-function without W=1. It is true GCC
would catch unused static non-inline functions, but it would weaken
Clang as a standalone compiler, at least.
Hence, here is a counter implementation. The current problem is, W=...
only controls compiler flags, which are globally effective. There is
no way to address only 'static inline' functions.
This commit defines KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN[123] corresponding to W=[123].
When KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN1 is defined, __maybe_unused is omitted from
the 'inline' macro.
The new macro __inline_maybe_unused makes the code a bit uglier, so I
hope we can remove it entirely after fixing most of the warnings.
If you contribute to code clean-up, please run "make CC=clang W=1"
and check -Wunused-function warnings. You will find lots of unused
functions.
Some of them are false-positives because the call-sites are disabled
by #ifdef. I do not like to abuse the inline keyword for suppressing
unused-function warnings because it is intended to be a hint for the
compiler optimization. I prefer #ifdef around the definition, or
__maybe_unused if #ifdef would make the code too ugly.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
2019-09-07 05:52:36 +03:00
KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DKBUILD_EXTRA_WARN2
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
e n d i f
#
# W=3 - more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored
#
2019-08-31 19:25:55 +03:00
i f n e q ( $( findstring 3, $ ( KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN ) ) , )
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wbad-function-cast
2020-10-27 01:03:13 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wcast-align
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wcast-qual
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wconversion
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wpacked
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wpadded
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wpointer-arith
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wredundant-decls
2020-07-22 07:57:43 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wsign-compare
kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.
This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
$(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
deal.
[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
to only one group.
For understanding this commit correctly:
We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.
The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.
Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
2019-08-31 19:25:54 +03:00
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wswitch-default
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $( call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static inline functions for W=1 build
GCC and Clang have different policy for -Wunused-function; GCC does not
warn unused static inline functions at all whereas Clang does if they
are defined in source files instead of included headers although it has
been suppressed since commit abb2ea7dfd82 ("compiler, clang: suppress
warning for unused static inline functions").
We often miss to delete unused functions where 'static inline' is used
in *.c files since there is no tool to detect them. Unused code remains
until somebody notices. For example, commit 075ddd75680f ("regulator:
core: remove unused rdev_get_supply()").
Let's remove __maybe_unused from the inline macro to allow Clang to
start finding unused static inline functions. For now, we do this only
for W=1 build since it is not a good idea to sprinkle warnings for the
normal build (e.g. 35 warnings for arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig).
My initial attempt was to add -Wno-unused-function for no W= build
(https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1120594/)
Nathan Chancellor pointed out that would weaken Clang's checks since
we would no longer get -Wunused-function without W=1. It is true GCC
would catch unused static non-inline functions, but it would weaken
Clang as a standalone compiler, at least.
Hence, here is a counter implementation. The current problem is, W=...
only controls compiler flags, which are globally effective. There is
no way to address only 'static inline' functions.
This commit defines KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN[123] corresponding to W=[123].
When KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN1 is defined, __maybe_unused is omitted from
the 'inline' macro.
The new macro __inline_maybe_unused makes the code a bit uglier, so I
hope we can remove it entirely after fixing most of the warnings.
If you contribute to code clean-up, please run "make CC=clang W=1"
and check -Wunused-function warnings. You will find lots of unused
functions.
Some of them are false-positives because the call-sites are disabled
by #ifdef. I do not like to abuse the inline keyword for suppressing
unused-function warnings because it is intended to be a hint for the
compiler optimization. I prefer #ifdef around the definition, or
__maybe_unused if #ifdef would make the code too ugly.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
2019-09-07 05:52:36 +03:00
KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DKBUILD_EXTRA_WARN3
2014-04-14 13:27:10 +04:00
e n d i f
2022-04-08 11:46:07 +03:00
#
# W=e - error out on warnings
#
i f n e q ( $( findstring e , $ ( KBUILD_EXTRA_WARN ) ) , )
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Werror
e n d i f
