[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020709280637w2290aec5gf3e8f90b08f53cc8@mail.gmail.com>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists