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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:54:30 +1100 From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: checkpatch potential false positive On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:29:18AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > Hi, > > Hello. > > > > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's > > > staging tree checkpatch emits > > > > > > -------------- > > > visorchipset.c > > > -------------- > > > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const > > > #1050: FILE: visorchipset.c:1050: > > > + char *envp[] = { env_cmd, env_id, env_state, env_bus, env_dev, > > > > > > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const > > > #1140: FILE: visorchipset.c:1140: > > > + char *envp[] = { env_selftest, NULL }; > > > > > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 1694 lines checked > > > > > > I may be wrong but I think the code in question is clean and > > > correct. Since checkpatch is saying this _might_ be better ... perhaps > > > checkpatch could emit CHECK instead of WARNING for this? > > CHECKs aren't enabled by default except for a few > directories and this warning is much more commonly > correct than incorrect. Ok, thanks. > checkpatch will always have both false positives and > false negatives. It's stupid, people generally aren't. > > Just ignore checkpatch bleats that aren't appropriate. Got it, cheers Andy.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists