From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597EE89E for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0233.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.233]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339CBA9 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:24:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEF1B18BB for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472474879.3425.30.camel@perches.com> From: Joe Perches To: Arnd Bergmann , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 05:47:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <5149968.BflLUdM3a8@wuerfel> References: <1472330452.26978.23.camel@perches.com> <20160828223759.GA12993@sasha-lappy> <20160829071515.wqlpjccq7a3vk7u6@piout.net> <5149968.BflLUdM3a8@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Greg KH , Sasha Levin , LKML Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 11:01 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:  > I don't find checkpatch.pl overly useful for my own patches and rarely > run it. I mostly run checkpatch to test new checkpatch rules. I generally don't run it on my own patches, mostly out of possibly misplaced confidence in my own adherence to the nominal kernel style.  It sometimes leads to mild regret over things like whitespace defects. I get over it quickly. But I also think checkpatch's overall false positive reporting rate is relatively low.  Most all of what it does to report possible defects is nominally correct. If anyone has examples of bad reporting by checkpatch, please send it. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932964AbcH2MsF (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:48:05 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0142.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.142]:43304 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932715AbcH2MsE (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:48:04 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:4321:5007:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12740:13019:13069:13161:13221:13229:13311:13357:13439:13894:14181:14659:21080:21324:30054:30064:30083:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: brain72_802df02594557 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1728 Message-ID: <1472474879.3425.30.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ? From: Joe Perches To: Arnd Bergmann , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: Alexandre Belloni , "Levin, Alexander" , Greg KH , Sasha Levin , LKML Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 05:47:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <5149968.BflLUdM3a8@wuerfel> References: <1472330452.26978.23.camel@perches.com> <20160828223759.GA12993@sasha-lappy> <20160829071515.wqlpjccq7a3vk7u6@piout.net> <5149968.BflLUdM3a8@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 11:01 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:  > I don't find checkpatch.pl overly useful for my own patches and rarely > run it. I mostly run checkpatch to test new checkpatch rules. I generally don't run it on my own patches, mostly out of possibly misplaced confidence in my own adherence to the nominal kernel style.  It sometimes leads to mild regret over things like whitespace defects. I get over it quickly. But I also think checkpatch's overall false positive reporting rate is relatively low.  Most all of what it does to report possible defects is nominally correct. If anyone has examples of bad reporting by checkpatch, please send it.