linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46A611D3.3070808@shadowen.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:50:59 +0100
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
CC:	jschopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.08

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 08:58:25AM -0500, jschopp wrote:
>>> within the last 3 weeks, this script went from *really usable* to *a big 
>>> noise maker*.
>> As we (mostly Andy of late) add more checks (good) there is bound to be 
>> some code we just didn't forsee that generates false positives (bad).  You 
>> can see a consistent history of cleaning these up as quickly as people send 
>> them in.  Hopefully in the interim there aren't too many false positives 
>> and the script is still useful.  We do try to put the new tests through 
>> their paces before adding them in, but our imaginations are limited.
>>
>> The goal has always been to err on the side of missing badness in code to 
>> avoid false positives. This way, when there is output it has a very high 
>> chance of not wasting your time.  Wait a couple weeks and it'll be there 
>> again.
>> ...
> 
> And it will be known as "noise maker" for years, even if that'll be 
> fixed in a few weeks...
> 
> Running it on the latest -rc or -mm should usually give good hints 
> whether the output has become better or worse.

I generally run a new release against all incoming patches on lkml for a
few days before releasing.  The latest problem ones have been caused by
a difference of opinion on what the CodingStyle means or about what the
"best" style for a few things.  Multiple initialisation etc being good
examples.

There is no way to test for "what the majority will dissagree with".

-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/