From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758157AbXI1ODI (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:03:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754906AbXI1OC4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:02:56 -0400 Received: from hellhawk.shadowen.org ([80.68.90.175]:2270 "EHLO hellhawk.shadowen.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753543AbXI1OCz (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:02:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:02:43 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft To: Pekka Enberg Cc: 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: <20070928140243.GO18163@shadowen.org> References: <20070928084003.GA18882@elte.hu> <20070928020132.f6c6f528.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070928092235.GA31180@shadowen.org> <20070928093902.GA28455@elte.hu> <20070928100024.GB18163@shadowen.org> <20070928104935.GA606@elte.hu> <20070928132138.GG18163@shadowen.org> <84144f020709280637w2290aec5gf3e8f90b08f53cc8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f020709280637w2290aec5gf3e8f90b08f53cc8@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SPF-Guess: neutral Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 04:37:49PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 9/28/07, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > That is unfair. Every time we discuss it I state that I disagree that > > hiding mostly useful tests is a good thing. I would love the tests to > > be 100% accurate, but if I removed all the tests that can false positive > > I would literally have none. There is a balance to be struck and we > > have significantly different ideas on where the balance is. > > Are you disagreeing with the numbers Ingo posted? 25,000 false > positives for the kernel is beyond silly... Existing conventions > should matter a lot and the default configuration for a static code > checker should really be 100%. So why not hide the potentially useful > warnings under -Wtoo-strict or similar command line option? I have not run across the whole kernel to find out, his estimation is likely high as his sample (mm/sched.c) includes a particular construct (multiple assignment) which is reported and overly common in that piece of code. If I take mm/signal.c (also big) I get 1/1000 files, and those two are easily fixed. I should note it shows some 62 actual real violations in that file. I do receive automated checks of every patch posted to lkml and I work to remove the false positives from them. The false positive ratio is very low in those reports and it those which drive my development effort. checkpatch is a work in progress and likely will be for many years to come. I have propose we 'gate' those subjective tests, and have asked for input on that thread on the default for those tests. -apw