[PATCH RESEND 1/2] powerpc/ps3: Drop redundant result assignment

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/03/2026 13:12, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 01:03:03PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/03/2026 12:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:54:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/03/2026 12:51, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 02:08:24PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> Return value of ps3_start_probe_thread() is not used, so code can be
>>>>>> simplified to fix W=1 clang warnings:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   arch/powerpc/platforms/ps3/device-init.c:953:6: error: variable 'result' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is exactly why -Werror is harmful.  A boring harmless warning
>>>>> turned into a build break :-(
>>>>
>>>> -Werror does not matter here. We do not want warnings either, assuming
>>>> of course they are correct.
>>>>
>>>> So if this warning is correct, then patch should be applied and WERROR
>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The build is broken.  -Werror is positively harmful.
>>>
>>> Yes, you want the warnings fixed, but maybe something else has priority
>>> right now?
>>
>> What do you mean? This is waiting on the list for long time - note that
>> it is a resend - so if warning is correct, for how long it should wait
>> to get to the "priority" box?
>>
>> And why anything needs even the priority here? Why priority has to be
>> discussed, especially for some legacy (I think?) code? Why correct
>> patches cannot be simply applied after some time/review?
> 
> It is totally simple: without -Werror, you can build a kernel.  With it,
> you cannot.

What are you discussing here? This is a patch, not WERROR talk.

> 
> The ***warning*** is correct, there is something in the code that can be
> improved.  That is why such things are warnings: the compiler can
> produce useful output, there is no reason to scream bloody murder.
> 
> The main reason some people like -Werror is because they are too lazy to
> look at the warning messages they get from normal builds.  Such
> developers need potty training, this is not a reason to punish all more
> reasonable people!
How is this relevant to this warning?

Best regards,
Krzysztof