From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754319AbXI1LI1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:08:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751363AbXI1LIT (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:08:19 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:16434 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbXI1LIS (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:08:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=W6uhNkktb9BrNeNp2dZ+nSVVoKxyWyKHNeUHOl+VZp44HsOJ547+ND7ojOSRfxP669ajjtnnnSlXlQARVoIti/qQ5h1noWryT0rqifTecL2vJKazz8DX7SfTdAnMlHk92K0Va+otesIJlp4mQOlAabJaiR6FSjiKCwBCh0rj9qQ= Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:03:10 +0800 From: WANG Cong To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Randy Dunlap , Joel Schopp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10 Message-ID: <20070928110310.GF2443@hacking> Reply-To: WANG Cong References: <20070928093902.GA28455@elte.hu> <20070928100024.GB18163@shadowen.org> <200709281246.45546.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709281246.45546.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:46:45PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >Am Freitag, 28. September 2007 schrieb Andy Whitcroft: >> > And this is not about any particular false positive. I dont mind an >> > "advanced mode" non-default opt-in option for the script, if someone is >> > interested in borderline or hard to judge warnings too, but these >> > default false positives are _lethal_ for a tool like this. (and i made >> > this point before.) This is a _fundamental_ thing, and i'm still not >> > sure whether you accept and understand that point. This is very basic >> > and very important, and this isnt the first (or second) time i raised >> > this. >> >> You are striving for a level of perfection that is simply not achieveable. > >I dont think Ingo is looking for perfection. Its about a different >optimization goals. > >Let me put it this way: > >checkpatch in advanced mode: >- I want to be able to see as many possible problems (this is the optimization >goal) >- I accept that I get false positives >- not useful for git and mail traffic > >checkpatch in safe mode: >- I never want a false positive (different optimization goal!) >- I accept that I will miss several real bugs because several tricky tests are >disabled >- useful for git and mail traffic > Maybe checkpatch.pl needs an option '-W' to turn on/off those vexed "noise". (It seems that 'q|quiet' doesn't do as much as what it hints.) ;-) -- "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."