[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201013052317.GB330398@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:23:17 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about
find_tt() not returning error
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > > And for the static analysis finding, we need to find a way to ignore this
> > > finding without simply ignoring all findings or new findings that just
> > > look very similar to the original finding, but which are valid.
> >
> > Then I suggest you fix the tool that "flagged" this, surely this is not
> > the only thing it detected with a test like this, right?
> >
> > What tool reported this?
> >
>
> Sudip and I are following on clang analyzer findings.
>
> On linux-next, there is new build target 'make clang-analyzer' that
> outputs a bunch of warnings, just as you would expect from such static
> analysis tools.
Why not fix the things that it finds that are actually issues? If there
are no actual issues found, then perhaps you should use a better tool? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists