Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 08:58:25AM -0500, jschopp wrote:
>>> within the last 3 weeks, this script went from *really usable* to *a big
>>> noise maker*.
>> As we (mostly Andy of late) add more checks (good) there is bound to be
>> some code we just didn't forsee that generates false positives (bad). You
>> can see a consistent history of cleaning these up as quickly as people send
>> them in. Hopefully in the interim there aren't too many false positives
>> and the script is still useful. We do try to put the new tests through
>> their paces before adding them in, but our imaginations are limited.
>>
>> The goal has always been to err on the side of missing badness in code to
>> avoid false positives. This way, when there is output it has a very high
>> chance of not wasting your time. Wait a couple weeks and it'll be there
>> again.
>> ...
>
> And it will be known as "noise maker" for years, even if that'll be
> fixed in a few weeks...
>
> Running it on the latest -rc or -mm should usually give good hints
> whether the output has become better or worse.
I generally run a new release against all incoming patches on lkml for a
few days before releasing. The latest problem ones have been caused by
a difference of opinion on what the CodingStyle means or about what the
"best" style for a few things. Multiple initialisation etc being good
examples.
There is no way to test for "what the majority will dissagree with".
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
