* gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline
@ 2008-11-18 22:20 Vegard Nossum
2008-11-20 8:26 ` Andy Whitcroft
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Vegard Nossum @ 2008-11-18 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Andy Whitcroft, Julia Lawall
Hi,
I've written a script that follows the mainline git repository and
runs checkpatch against all new commits. The result is available as an
RSS stream:
http://kernel.org/~vegard/gitwatch.rss
Only commits with warnings or errors are shown. Files that change are
also searched for known/frequent coding errors using Coccinelle and a
selection of the semantic patches found on the Coccinelle website.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline 2008-11-18 22:20 gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline Vegard Nossum @ 2008-11-20 8:26 ` Andy Whitcroft 2008-11-20 8:57 ` Vegard Nossum 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2008-11-20 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vegard Nossum; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Julia Lawall On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:20:48PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > Hi, > > I've written a script that follows the mainline git repository and > runs checkpatch against all new commits. The result is available as an > RSS stream: > > http://kernel.org/~vegard/gitwatch.rss > > Only commits with warnings or errors are shown. Files that change are > also searched for known/frequent coding errors using Coccinelle and a > selection of the semantic patches found on the Coccinelle website. Thats pretty intresting. Looking at some of the cochinelle output I am a little confused as to what its saying. Am I right in thinking that for those reports that a proposed patch is printed, after the comment for the original patch? If so it might be helpful to say something like 'proposed modificiation' just before the patchlet. Also which version of checkpatch is this output being generated with? The one at the head of the git tree or something else? I see a couple of false positives in there that I know I have fixed already. -apw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline 2008-11-20 8:26 ` Andy Whitcroft @ 2008-11-20 8:57 ` Vegard Nossum 2008-11-20 9:07 ` Andy Whitcroft 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Vegard Nossum @ 2008-11-20 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andy Whitcroft; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Julia Lawall On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:20:48PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: >> I've written a script that follows the mainline git repository and >> runs checkpatch against all new commits. The result is available as an >> RSS stream: >> >> http://kernel.org/~vegard/gitwatch.rss >> >> Only commits with warnings or errors are shown. Files that change are >> also searched for known/frequent coding errors using Coccinelle and a >> selection of the semantic patches found on the Coccinelle website. > > Thats pretty intresting. Looking at some of the cochinelle output I am > a little confused as to what its saying. Am I right in thinking that > for those reports that a proposed patch is printed, after the comment > for the original patch? If so it might be helpful to say something like > 'proposed modificiation' just before the patchlet. You are correct, those are the modifications that would have been made by the semantic patch. I agree, it might look like the log text belongs to the patch below, which is wrong. We are also planning to add a description to each of the semantic patches so that a better explanation is given for the change. > Also which version of checkpatch is this output being generated with? > The one at the head of the git tree or something else? I see a couple > of false positives in there that I know I have fixed already. Yes, it's a copy of the one in linux-2.6.git (after v2.6.28-rc4). The file itself says 0.24. Which false positives were you thinking about? Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline 2008-11-20 8:57 ` Vegard Nossum @ 2008-11-20 9:07 ` Andy Whitcroft 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2008-11-20 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vegard Nossum; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Julia Lawall On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:20:48PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > >> I've written a script that follows the mainline git repository and > >> runs checkpatch against all new commits. The result is available as an > >> RSS stream: > >> > >> http://kernel.org/~vegard/gitwatch.rss > >> > >> Only commits with warnings or errors are shown. Files that change are > >> also searched for known/frequent coding errors using Coccinelle and a > >> selection of the semantic patches found on the Coccinelle website. > > > > Thats pretty intresting. Looking at some of the cochinelle output I am > > a little confused as to what its saying. Am I right in thinking that > > for those reports that a proposed patch is printed, after the comment > > for the original patch? If so it might be helpful to say something like > > 'proposed modificiation' just before the patchlet. > > You are correct, those are the modifications that would have been made > by the semantic patch. I agree, it might look like the log text > belongs to the patch below, which is wrong. We are also planning to > add a description to each of the semantic patches so that a better > explanation is given for the change. Yes a "You should use NULL not 0" before the patch would make it clearer for sure. > > Also which version of checkpatch is this output being generated with? > > The one at the head of the git tree or something else? I see a couple > > of false positives in there that I know I have fixed already. > > Yes, it's a copy of the one in linux-2.6.git (after v2.6.28-rc4). The > file itself says 0.24. Which false positives were you thinking about? There are a couple in there, one is a comment tracking issue and there is one on ':' tracking for things of this form: int foo:1, bar:2, baz:1; Fixes for these are in my tree, not sure if Andrew has them yet. I am a little behind and intending on rolling up a new block of changes this week. -apw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-20 9:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-11-18 22:20 gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline Vegard Nossum 2008-11-20 8:26 ` Andy Whitcroft 2008-11-20 8:57 ` Vegard Nossum 2008-11-20 9:07 ` Andy Whitcroft
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox