From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752135AbZBPRMz (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:12:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750838AbZBPRMq (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:12:46 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54248 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750807AbZBPRMo (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:12:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:12:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Stefan Richter Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Manish Katiyar , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c Message-ID: <20090216171233.GB25907@elte.hu> References: <20090215184752.GA4970@uranus.ravnborg.org> <4999650C.6030700@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216132822.GC17996@elte.hu> <4999717F.7090205@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216141917.GA8981@elte.hu> <499984C1.6020004@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090216155023.GA4422@elte.hu> <4999908D.4050403@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4999908D.4050403@s5r6.in-berlin.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stefan Richter wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Stefan Richter wrote: > > > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, > >>> ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug > >>> or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to > >>> mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already > >>> got merged. I dont understand your point. > >> I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what > >> the effect of the patch is and describe this". > > > > Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be > > mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable. > > I'm arguing that in all those other cases the method "think about what > the effect of the patch is and describe this"¹ applies just as well, > and that the mentioning of the tools used does not add value for > future readers of the changelog. [...] That position of not adding tool information to the commit log is not just not tenable but also incredibly silly. Those tools are useful, they result in fixes, so why should the patch author pretend and hide the method of finding problems from the Git history? We often write "found via review" or "found via testing". It's useful and it gives people an idea of how certain types of fixes were found. Ingo