Am Freitag, 28. September 2007 schrieb Andy Whitcroft:
> > And this is not about any particular false positive. I dont mind an
> > "advanced mode" non-default opt-in option for the script, if someone is
> > interested in borderline or hard to judge warnings too, but these
> > default false positives are _lethal_ for a tool like this. (and i made
> > this point before.) This is a _fundamental_ thing, and i'm still not
> > sure whether you accept and understand that point. This is very basic
> > and very important, and this isnt the first (or second) time i raised
> > this.
>
> You are striving for a level of perfection that is simply not achieveable.
I dont think Ingo is looking for perfection. Its about a different
optimization goals.
Let me put it this way:
checkpatch in advanced mode:
- I want to be able to see as many possible problems (this is the optimization
goal)
- I accept that I get false positives
- not useful for git and mail traffic
checkpatch in safe mode:
- I never want a false positive (different optimization goal!)
- I accept that I will miss several real bugs because several tricky tests are
disabled
- useful for git and mail traffic
Christian
-
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]
