On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 09:17:38AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:23:38 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Run the static checkers on qrap as well as on passt-repair and passt.  This
> > shows a number of minor warnings, which we fix.
> 
> This is actually for qrap only, so I would drop it. See also
> 8346216c9adf ("Makefile: Simplify exclusion of qrap from static checks") and
> 988a4d75f894 ("Makefile: Exclude qrap.c from clang-tidy checks")

Ah, yeah, leftover comment from an earlier draft that handled qrap and
passt-repair in the same patch.

> It's not really something we maintain and the next commit touching qrap
> should really remove the whole thing instead. The "soon" in
> 988a4d75f894 was almost two years ago.
> 
> My worry is that if we enable static checkers here we risk having to
> waste time on warnings in the near future.

Yeah, that's fair.  Let's drop this one.

> 
> Other than this and the comment to 4/13 the series looks good to me,
> and I'm basing v6 of "RFC: Dynamic configuration update implementation"
> on it.
> 
> -- 
> Stefano
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson