[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1201903819.3134.73.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:10:19 -0600
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 22:47 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Feb 1 2008 03:21, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >>
> >> Question is: why do people keep adding new ones when they are so easy to
> >> detect and fix?
> >>
> >> Asnwer: because neither they nor their patch integrators are doing adequate
> >> compilation testing.
> >
> >[...]
> >Unless they break the build, or if there currently are 0 and they make
> >it non-zero, people seem not to care....sad. Probably the same for
> >sparse/checkpatch, "there's plenty already, I can't be bothered to look"
>
> checkpatch does not parse C, it uses heuristical regexes.
>
> That makes it very different from sparse or the section mismatch
> finder which do not output false positives.
Even by the exalted standards of LKML which sometimes seems to make a
virtue of misinformation, four wrong statements in twenty seven words is
pretty impressive ... I salute you!
James
--
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