On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 04:37:49PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 9/28/07, Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is unfair. Every time we discuss it I state that I disagree that > > hiding mostly useful tests is a good thing. I would love the tests to > > be 100% accurate, but if I removed all the tests that can false positive > > I would literally have none. There is a balance to be struck and we > > have significantly different ideas on where the balance is. > > Are you disagreeing with the numbers Ingo posted? 25,000 false > positives for the kernel is beyond silly... Existing conventions > should matter a lot and the default configuration for a static code > checker should really be 100%. So why not hide the potentially useful > warnings under -Wtoo-strict or similar command line option?
I have not run across the whole kernel to find out, his estimation is likely high as his sample (mm/sched.c) includes a particular construct (multiple assignment) which is reported and overly common in that piece of code. If I take mm/signal.c (also big) I get 1/1000 files, and those two are easily fixed. I should note it shows some 62 actual real violations in that file. I do receive automated checks of every patch posted to lkml and I work to remove the false positives from them. The false positive ratio is very low in those reports and it those which drive my development effort. checkpatch is a work in progress and likely will be for many years to come. I have propose we 'gate' those subjective tests, and have asked for input on that thread on the default for those tests. -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/
