[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080201224038.GC17828@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:40:38 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
Cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: Are Section mismatches out of control?
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:47:25PM +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.
Unfortunately I most correct you. Section mismatch checks seldoms finds
what I would call 'real' bugs that causes oops - but it happen.
It is mostly fasle positives that needs workaround, but also a great
deal of missing annotation resulting in additional memory saved.
And then occasionally a bad reference in some error handling that
seldom trigger but when it does it would oops.
Sam
--
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