linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

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]

Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:37:49 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Andy Whitcroft" <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	"Joel Schopp" <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10

Hi Andy,

On 9/28/07, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> 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?
-
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/