Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 08:58:25AM -0500, jschopp wrote: >>> within the last 3 weeks, this script went from *really usable* to *a big >>> noise maker*. >> As we (mostly Andy of late) add more checks (good) there is bound to be >> some code we just didn't forsee that generates false positives (bad). You >> can see a consistent history of cleaning these up as quickly as people send >> them in. Hopefully in the interim there aren't too many false positives >> and the script is still useful. We do try to put the new tests through >> their paces before adding them in, but our imaginations are limited. >> >> The goal has always been to err on the side of missing badness in code to >> avoid false positives. This way, when there is output it has a very high >> chance of not wasting your time. Wait a couple weeks and it'll be there >> again. >> ... > > And it will be known as "noise maker" for years, even if that'll be > fixed in a few weeks... > > Running it on the latest -rc or -mm should usually give good hints > whether the output has become better or worse.
I generally run a new release against all incoming patches on lkml for a few days before releasing. The latest problem ones have been caused by a difference of opinion on what the CodingStyle means or about what the "best" style for a few things. Multiple initialisation etc being good examples. There is no way to test for "what the majority will dissagree with". -apw - 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/
