Re: [PATCH] update to version 0.10

From: Christian Borntraeger
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 06:47:07 EST

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
- 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
- useful for git and mail traffic

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at