public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:52:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46A53F3A.7060509@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <740c90243aaa6f6d4640d71230c4fa27@pinky>

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> This version brings a number of new checks, and a number of bug
> fixes.  Of note:
> 
>   - warnings for multiple assignments per line
>   - warnings for multiple declarations per line
>   - checks for single statement blocks with braces
> 
> This patch includes an update for feature-removal-schedule.txt to
> better target checks.
> 
> Andy Whitcroft (12):
>       Version: 0.08
>       only apply printk checks where there is a string literal
>       allow suppression of errors for when no patch is found
>       warn about multiple assignments
>       warn on declaration of multiple variables
>       check for kfree() with needless null check
>       check for single statement braced blocks
>       check for aggregate initialisation on the next line
>       handle the => operator
>       check for spaces between function name and open parenthesis
>       move to explicit Check: entries in feature-removal-schedule.txt
>       handle pointer attributes

within the last 3 weeks, this script went from *really usable* to *a big noise 
maker*.

I am testing this with new drivers (igb, e1000e, ixgbe) and the amount of 
warnings it throws was in the order of 10 last week, but now I'm at hundreds 
again, and my code has not changed.

The superfluous braces error should definately be fixed.

Warning on multiple declarations on a line is nice, but IMO really too verbose 
(why is "int i, j;" bad? Did C somehow change syntax today?).

Some of the new features are plain broken as I posted before. A lot of it now is 
purely false positives only.

Bottom line: I really wish that I could have the script run in the old behaviour 
before. While this level of verbosity is great for single-line patches, it 
really completely wastes my time when I'm trying to get a grasp for a 200k hunk 
piece of code.

The best way to implement this is that I can somehow select / omit some of these 
checks when running the script. With more and more checks added to the script it 
will be very quick for new driver writers to stop using it because of the sheer 
volume that the script currently outputs.

Auke

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-07-23 23:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-15  8:25 [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08 Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-23 23:08 ` Kok, Auke
2007-07-24  0:11   ` Randy Dunlap
2007-07-24  9:06   ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-24  9:15     ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-24 11:19       ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-24 13:08         ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-07-24 16:51         ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-07-24 17:20           ` Randy Dunlap
2007-07-24 17:46             ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-07-24 18:03             ` Randy Dunlap
2007-07-24 18:30               ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-24 17:22       ` Paul Mundt
2007-07-24 18:00         ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-07-24 18:31           ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-24 19:49             ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-24 20:32               ` jschopp
2007-07-25  1:13                 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-25 15:39                   ` SL Baur
2007-07-25 16:54                     ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-24 18:45         ` jschopp
2007-07-24 19:59           ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-24 20:53             ` jschopp
2007-07-23 23:13 ` Jesper Juhl
2007-07-23 23:36 ` Kok, Auke
2007-07-24 16:53   ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-07-24 17:06     ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-08-03 12:37     ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-23 23:52 ` Kok, Auke [this message]
2007-07-24 11:33   ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-24 11:47     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-07-24 11:51       ` Ingo Molnar
2007-07-24 16:56     ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-07-24 18:38       ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-24 13:58   ` jschopp
2007-07-24 14:33     ` Adrian Bunk
2007-07-24 14:50       ` Andy Whitcroft

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=46A53F3A.7060509@intel.com \
    --to=auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=apw@shadowen.org \
    --cc=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox