On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:46:45PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >Am Freitag, 28. September 2007 schrieb Andy Whitcroft: >> > And this is not about any particular false positive. I dont mind an >> > "advanced mode" non-default opt-in option for the script, if someone is >> > interested in borderline or hard to judge warnings too, but these >> > default false positives are _lethal_ for a tool like this. (and i made >> > this point before.) This is a _fundamental_ thing, and i'm still not >> > sure whether you accept and understand that point. This is very basic >> > and very important, and this isnt the first (or second) time i raised >> > this. >> >> You are striving for a level of perfection that is simply not achieveable. > >I dont think Ingo is looking for perfection. Its about a different >optimization goals. > >Let me put it this way: > >checkpatch in advanced mode: >- I want to be able to see as many possible problems (this is the optimization >goal) >- I accept that I get false positives >- not useful for git and mail traffic > >checkpatch in safe mode: >- I never want a false positive (different optimization goal!) >- I accept that I will miss several real bugs because several tricky tests are >disabled >- useful for git and mail traffic >
Maybe checkpatch.pl needs an option '-W' to turn on/off those vexed "noise". (It seems that 'q|quiet' doesn't do as much as what it hints.) ;-) -- "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - 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/
