From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752847AbZBPQNG (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:13:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751123AbZBPQMy (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:12:54 -0500 Received: from hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de ([141.43.120.68]:56636 "EHLO hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbZBPQMx (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:12:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4999908D.4050403@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:13:01 +0100 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20090104 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Sam Ravnborg , Manish Katiyar , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c 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> In-Reply-To: <20090216155023.GA4422@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. 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/