Re: checkpatch potential false positive

["Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>]

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:29:18AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Hi,
> 
> Hello.
> 
> > > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> > > staging tree checkpatch emits
> > > 
> > > --------------
> > > visorchipset.c
> > > --------------
> > > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > > #1050: FILE: visorchipset.c:1050:
> > > +	char *envp[] = { env_cmd, env_id, env_state, env_bus, env_dev,
> > > 
> > > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > > #1140: FILE: visorchipset.c:1140:
> > > +	char *envp[] = { env_selftest, NULL };
> > > 
> > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 1694 lines checked
> > > 
> > > I may be wrong but I think the code in question is clean and
> > > correct. Since checkpatch is saying this _might_ be better ... perhaps
> > > checkpatch could emit CHECK instead of WARNING for this?
> 
> CHECKs aren't enabled by default except for a few
> directories and this warning is much more commonly
> correct than incorrect.

Ok, thanks.

> checkpatch will always have both false positives and
> false negatives.  It's stupid, people generally aren't.
> 
> Just ignore checkpatch bleats that aren't appropriate.

Got it, cheers Andy.