Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> 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.  When I go through changes from three or five
years ago, I need other kinds of information than patch authoring tools
that were en vogue some years ago.

Including anything relevant is the most important one of the tasks when
writing a changelog; another --- only slightly less important --- task
is to exclude anything irrelevant.

Of course what's relevant and irrelevant is in the eye of the beholder;
but the used tools + materials (scripts, static analyzers, favourite
editor, favourite crop of tea) surely are of very very low relevance.

-------------
¹) and if it not quite clear, describe also why this change is desirable
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -==-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/