On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Sergei Organov wrote:
>
> I agree that if the warning has no true positives, it sucks. The problem
> is that somehow I doubt it has none. And the reasons for the doubt are:
Why do you harp on "no true positives"?
That's a pointless thing. You can make *any* warning have "true
positives". My personal favorite is the unconditional warning:
warning: user is an idiot
and I _guarantee_ you that it has a lot of true positives.
It's the "no false negatives" angle you should look at.
THAT is what matters. The reason we don't see a lot of warnings about
idiot users is not that people don't do stupid things, but that
*sometimes* they actually don't do something stupid.
Yeah, I know, it's far-fetched, but still.
In other words, you're barking up *exactly* the wrong tree. You're looking
at it the wrong way around.
Think of it this way: in science, a theory is proven to be bad by a single
undeniable fact just showing that it's wrong.
The same is largely true of a warning. If the warning sometimes happens
for code that is perfectly fine, the warning is bad.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
