From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D5711482E0; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713369086; cv=none; b=gE+M6ZzFRzAI5iVtn/m+lP2xKDeCdh2EBlKbVK8ov/x4yBmQ+E/JoQV5Z0v+XSm3ylBvDUKnwxvwOdKvLIJlUkRlQs4bTXnR/4k0t6JKizn7KvUWvex/poEWeRcBICN2ps3hLgzQw8ExzsAIXo+GhaBJhWmNytjyKPhmB5N2ric= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713369086; c=relaxed/simple; bh=edMEOEGuTlM3PAdEmFEfjl2jYJNl85TN3kgL+Uyi5vI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=GGRtc3bEH7jt1aVNTWFjBArVOTQBpjMmm8CjGRUUSGXsn9wJaPjrHLypH7qCoSWRu+mkk3uFo2r0DAuk5gn7iLA2kSHhSs67+kzkHftmbJmvbc9+S5UHosATcs+XAQeEeft/bmruHcyHvjcr+nb9gtyPyrA1dwsdQnJPbH70s9Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=JZgtL9Xg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="JZgtL9Xg" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (85-76-15-230-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.15.230]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA4CB1815; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 17:50:33 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1713369034; bh=edMEOEGuTlM3PAdEmFEfjl2jYJNl85TN3kgL+Uyi5vI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JZgtL9XgcBbTfPXnFAZgCDPtfvA9dKRTMOKsCQP54tvG+vgRvyoUVmKyvHqZUW8+9 LNXSsOnYHGLTgFNjFxrIi0HOt16nKFhbM2X/j3JnMIJzK5z7DcFFop4CUa4dg8LTzE vNZ8xAy3r+pQq+qAKQ6gJZoeSd1hXqjf9ytYbmBY= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:51:12 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Ricardo Ribalda , Martin Tuma , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , Hugues Fruchet , Alain Volmat , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Paul Kocialkowski , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Chen-Yu Tsai , Jernej Skrabec , Samuel Holland , Sakari Ailus , Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , Sowjanya Komatineni , Luca Ceresoli , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , Hans Verkuil , Sergey Kozlov , Abylay Ospan , Ezequiel Garcia , Dmitry Osipenko , Stanimir Varbanov , Vikash Garodia , Bryan O'Donoghue , Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Benjamin Mugnier , Sylvain Petinot , Jacopo Mondi , Kieran Bingham , Niklas =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=B6derlund?= , Pavel Machek , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Drokin Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] media: Fix coccinelle warning/errors Message-ID: <20240417155112.GQ12561@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20240415-fix-cocci-v1-0-477afb23728b@chromium.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:47:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > In my opinion, it's better to just ignore old warnings. I agree. Whatever checkers we enable, whatever code we test, there will always be false positives. A CI system needs to be able to ignore those false positives and only warn about new issues. > When code is new the warnings are going to be mostly correct. The > original author is there and knows what the code does. Someone has > the hardware ready to test any changes. High value, low burden. > > When the code is old only the false positives are left. No one is > testing the code. It's low value, high burden. > > Plus it puts static checker authors in a difficult place because now > people have to work around our mistakes. It creates animosity. > > Now we have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard for false > positives. It sounds like I'm complaining and lazy, right? But Oleg > Drokin has told me previously that I spend too much time trying to > silence false positives instead of working on new code. He's has a > point which is that actually we have limited amount of time and we have > to make choices about what's the most useful thing we can do. > > So what I do and what the zero day bot does is we look at warnings one > time and we re-review old warnings whenever a file is changed. > > Kernel developers are very good at addressing static checker warnings > and fixing the real issues... People sometimes ask me to create a > database of warnings which I have reviewed but the answer is that > anything old can be ignored. As I write this, I've had a thought that > instead of a database of false positives maybe we should record a > database of real bugs to ensure that the fixes for anything real is > applied. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart