From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753388AbdKFUyf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:54:35 -0500
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:59069 "EHLO
        out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751787AbdKFUye (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:54:34 -0500
X-ME-Sender: <xms:CcwAWgYlipPOLzoMgrTQ7Yqvx34zvlkLbC7V6_jfwV-McnB7o-F1aA>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:30 +1100
From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch potential false positive
Message-ID: <20171106205430.GR18478@eros>
References: <20171106041914.GB18478@eros>
 <20171106083336.ccz5ht77iegqrd6d@brain>
 <1509982158.2431.42.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1509982158.2431.42.camel@perches.com>
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.