kernel/linux.git/Makefile, branch v5.7.2

Linux 5.7.2

2020-06-10T18:21:45+00:00

Linux 5.7.1

2020-06-07T09:33:02+00:00

Linux 5.7

2020-05-31T23:49:15+00:00

Linux 5.7-rc7

2020-05-24T22:32:54+00:00

Linux 5.7-rc6

2020-05-17T23:48:37+00:00

Linux 5.7-rc5

2020-05-10T22:16:58+00:00

gcc-10: disable 'restrict' warning for now

2020-05-09T22:45:21+00:00

gcc-10 now warns about passing aliasing pointers to functions that take restricted pointers. That's actually a great warning, and if we ever start using 'restrict' in the kernel, it might be quite useful. But right now we don't, and it turns out that the only thing this warns about is an idiom where we have declared a few functions to be "printf-like" (which seems to make gcc pick up the restricted pointer thing), and then we print to the same buffer that we also use as an input. And people do that as an odd concatenation pattern, with code like this: #define sysfs_show_gen_prop(buffer, fmt, ...) \ snprintf(buffer, PAGE_SIZE, "%s"fmt, buffer, __VA_ARGS__) where we have 'buffer' as both the destination of the final result, and as the initial argument. Yes, it's a bit questionable. And outside of the kernel, people do have standard declarations like int snprintf( char *restrict buffer, size_t bufsz, const char *restrict format, ... ); where that output buffer is marked as a restrict pointer that cannot alias with any other arguments. But in the context of the kernel, that 'use snprintf() to concatenate to the end result' does work, and the pattern shows up in multiple places. And we have not marked our own version of snprintf() as taking restrict pointers, so the warning is incorrect for now, and gcc picks it up on its own. If we do start using 'restrict' in the kernel (and it might be a good idea if people find places where it matters), we'll need to figure out how to avoid this issue for snprintf and friends. But in the meantime, this warning is not useful. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

gcc-10: disable 'stringop-overflow' warning for now

2020-05-09T22:40:52+00:00

This is the final array bounds warning removal for gcc-10 for now. Again, the warning is good, and we should re-enable all these warnings when we have converted all the legacy array declaration cases to flexible arrays. But in the meantime, it's just noise. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

gcc-10: disable 'array-bounds' warning for now

2020-05-09T21:52:44+00:00

This is another fine warning, related to the 'zero-length-bounds' one, but hitting the same historical code in the kernel. Because C didn't historically support flexible array members, we have code that instead uses a one-sized array, the same way we have cases of zero-sized arrays. The one-sized arrays come from either not wanting to use the gcc zero-sized array extension, or from a slight convenience-feature, where particularly for strings, the size of the structure now includes the allocation for the final NUL character. So with a "char name[1];" at the end of a structure, you can do things like v = my_malloc(sizeof(struct vendor) + strlen(name)); and avoid the "+1" for the terminator. Yes, the modern way to do that is with a flexible array, and using 'offsetof()' instead of 'sizeof()', and adding the "+1" by hand. That also technically gets the size "more correct" in that it avoids any alignment (and thus padding) issues, but this is another long-term cleanup thing that will not happen for 5.7. So disable the warning for now, even though it's potentially quite useful. Having a slew of warnings that then hide more urgent new issues is not an improvement. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

gcc-10: disable 'zero-length-bounds' warning for now

2020-05-09T21:30:29+00:00

This is a fine warning, but we still have a number of zero-length arrays in the kernel that come from the traditional gcc extension. Yes, they are getting converted to flexible arrays, but in the meantime the gcc-10 warning about zero-length bounds is very verbose, and is hiding other issues. I missed one actual build failure because it was hidden among hundreds of lines of warning. Thankfully I caught it on the second go before pushing things out, but it convinced me that I really need to disable the new warnings for now. We'll hopefully be all done with our conversion to flexible arrays in the not too distant future, and we can then re-enable this warning. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds