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 Christian - 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/
