From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:56484 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757316AbYBAWK1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:10:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Are Section mismatches out of control? From: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: References: <20080201104718.GA11717@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080201030329.9b760777.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1201864894.23523.117.camel@brick> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:10:19 -0600 Message-Id: <1201903819.3134.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Harvey Harrison , Andrew Morton , Sam Ravnborg , LKML , linux arch On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 22:47 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote: > >> > >> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to > >> detect and fix? > >> > >> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate > >> compilation testing. > > > >[...] > >Unless they break the build, or if there currently are 0 and they make > >it non-zero, people seem not to care....sad. Probably the same for > >sparse/checkpatch, "there's plenty already, I can't be bothered to look" > > checkpatch does not parse C, it uses heuristical regexes. > > That makes it very different from sparse or the section mismatch > finder which do not output false positives. Even by the exalted standards of LKML which sometimes seems to make a virtue of misinformation, four wrong statements in twenty seven words is pretty impressive ... I salute you! James