Re: [PATCH] update to version 0.10

From: Andy Whitcroft
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 10:03:10 EST

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 04:37:49PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> On 9/28/07, Andy Whitcroft <apw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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

I have propose we 'gate' those subjective tests, and have asked for
input on that thread on the default for those tests.

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