here is an update wrt. the latest checkpatch.pl-next version
(v11-to-be), about kernel/sched.c warnings:
> size # warnings
>
> 25383 checkpatch.pl.v6 5
> 26038 checkpatch.pl.v7 6
> 29603 checkpatch.pl.v8
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:46:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:38 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:38 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
>
> [bunfight]
>
oy, knock
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:38 +0100 Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Anyhow. I have already added a --check/--no-check option which controls
> the more subjective tests which will be in the next release; though its
> likely the option name will be something more useful by then.
>
> The only question is wh
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:19:01 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Sep 28 2007 19:03, WANG Cong wrote:
> >
> >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.)
>
> Make checkpatch.pl a C language par
Hi Andy.
> I think it is clear that we differ on what should and should not be
> output by default. Clever people are able to opt out of the warnings,
> of things they think they dissagree with. It is the people with little
> experience who need the most guidance and those people who the tool
> s
The only question is whether this should default to on. You are voting
off. I personally think on.
Andrew? Randy? Joel?
The main audience of this is new contributors, who should have more verbose
output, including nitpicky things like multiple assignments per line. The
default should tar
On Sep 28 2007 19:03, WANG Cong wrote:
>
>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.)
Make checkpatch.pl a C language parser, then it can handle
all the whitespace violations without false positives.
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% accur
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 lite
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > And this is not about any particular false positive. I dont mind an
> > > "advanced mode" non-default opt-in o
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 b
* Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > 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 t
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 posit
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> > > > #2319:
> > > > + max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> > >
> > > That warning is non-bogus, al
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:40:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This version brings a number of new checks, and a number of bug fixes.
>
> your checkpatch patch itself produces 22 warnings ...
>
> i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are ma
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i
> > reported to you earlier:
> >
> > WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> > #2319:
* Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> > > #2319:
> > > + max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> >
> > That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities
> > which I personally don't bother fix
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:01:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i
> > reported to you earlier:
> >
> > WARNING: multiple assignments should be av
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i
> reported to you earlier:
>
> WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> #2319:
> + max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr
* Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This version brings a number of new checks, and a number of bug fixes.
your checkpatch patch itself produces 22 warnings ...
i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i
reported to you earlier:
WARNING: multiple assig
This version brings a number of new checks, and a number of bug
fixes. Of note:
- better categorisation and space checks for dual use unary/binary
operators
- warn on deprecated use of {SPIN,RW}_LOCK_UNLOCKED
- check if/for/while with trailing ';' for hanging statements
- detect DOS
22 matches
Mail list logo
