From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 4:40 am 2007

* Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> This version brings a number of new checks, and a number of bug fixes.  

your checkpatch patch itself produces 22 warnings ...

i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
reported to you earlier:

  WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
  #2319:
  +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;

and new bogus ones:

  ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
  #5287:
  +               mode_t mode, proc_handler *proc_handler)

  ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
  #5328:
  +static ctl_table *sd_alloc_ctl_cpu_table(int cpu)

  ERROR: need space before that '*' (ctx:VxV)
  #209:
  +# define INIT_TASK_GRP_LOAD    2*NICE_0_LOAD

why did you ignore my feedback? Ever since v8 the quality of 
checkpatch.pl has been getting worse and worse as there are way too many 
false positives. I'm still stuck on v8 for my own use, v9 and v10 is 
unusable.

	Ingo

--------------->
WARNING: line over 80 characters
#174: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:572:
+		     $line =~ /^.\s*(?:$Storage\s+)?($Ident)\b\s*\**\s*$Ident\s*(?:;|=)/)) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#186: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:584:
+						(?:\s*\*+\s*const|\s*\*+|(?:\s*\[\s*\])+)?

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#200: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:612:
+				ERROR("switch and case should be at the same indent\n$hereline$err");

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#208: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:619:
+			my ($level, @ctx) = ctx_statement_level($linenr, $realcnt, 0);

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#213: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:624:
+			# Skip over any removed lines in the context following statement.

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#221: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:635:
+			if ($level == 0 && $ctx =~ /\)\s*\;\s*$/ && defined $lines[$ctx_ln - 1]) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#222: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:636:
+				my ($nlength, $nindent) = line_stats($lines[$ctx_ln - 1]);

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#224: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:638:
+					WARN("Trailing semicolon indicates no statements, indent implies otherwise\n" .

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#225: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:639:
+						"$here\n$ctx\n$lines[$ctx_ln - 1]");

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#245: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:722:
+		} elsif ($line =~ m{$NonptrType(\*+)(?:\s+(?:$Attribute|$Sparse))?\s+[A-Za-z\d_]+}) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#250: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:726:
+		} elsif ($line =~ m{$NonptrType\s+(\*+)(?!\s+(?:$Attribute|$Sparse))\s+[A-Za-z\d_]+}) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#288: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:842:
+						^.\#\s*define\s+$Ident\s*(?:\([^\)]*\))?|

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#313: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:867:
+						my $before = ctx_expr_before($unary_ctx);

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#314: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:868:
+						if ($before =~ /(?:for|if|while)\s*$/) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#320: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:874:
+					if ($op eq '*' && $unary_ctx =~ /$UnaryDefine$/) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#326: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:880:
+				#	print "UNARY: <$is_unary $a:$op:$c> <$ca:$op:$cc> <$unary_ctx>\n";

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#338: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:905:
+				# '*' as part of a type definition -- reported already.

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#346: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:913:
+				         ($is_unary && ($op eq '*' || $op eq '-' || $op eq '&'))) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#347: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:914:
+					if ($ctx !~ /[WEB]x./ && $ca !~ /(?:\)|!|~|\*|-|\&|\||\+\+|\-\-|\{)$/) {

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#387: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:932:
+					 $op eq '&' or $op eq '^' or $op eq '|' or

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#432: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:1160:
+			ERROR("Use of  is deprecated: see Documentation/spinlocks.txt\n" . $herecurr);

WARNING: line over 80 characters
#456: FILE: scripts/checkpatch.pl:1230:
+			WARN("unnecessary cast may hide bugs, see http://c-faq.com/malloc/mallocnocast.html\n" . $herecurr);

Your patch has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
-


From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 5:52 am 2007

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:40:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
> > This version brings a number of new checks, and a number of bug fixes.  
> 
> your checkpatch patch itself produces 22 warnings ...
> 
> i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
> reported to you earlier:
> 
>   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
>   #2319:
>   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> 
> and new bogus ones:
> 
>   ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
>   #5287:
>   +               mode_t mode, proc_handler *proc_handler)
> 
>   ERROR: need consistent spacing around '*' (ctx:WxV)
>   #5328:
>   +static ctl_table *sd_alloc_ctl_cpu_table(int cpu)
> 
>   ERROR: need space before that '*' (ctx:VxV)
>   #209:
>   +# define INIT_TASK_GRP_LOAD    2*NICE_0_LOAD
> 
> why did you ignore my feedback? Ever since v8 the quality of 
> checkpatch.pl has been getting worse and worse as there are way too many 
> false positives. I'm still stuck on v8 for my own use, v9 and v10 is 
> unusable.

I think if you read your incoming email you will see nothing of the sort.
I have discussed this with you and in public.  The multiple assignment
check you dissagree with and we have softened it in direct response to that
dislike.  However, the main proponent of this existing wanted that check.
Therefore it has stayed.  The other false positives you report are real.
Some are fixed in my development version, others are not.  They come
from the fact that I was asked for better checks on '*' and the like in
its binary mode.  To get that I had to actually start telling unary and
binary uses of the same operator appart.  That is hard in the face of
typedef'd types.  I am working to make it better.

However, the key here is that it will never be 100%, not without
becoming a try C parser.  The output is a _guide_ if you don't like its
output ignore the reports you dislike.  I for one send out patches with
style violations where I deem that the code is better that way.

-apw
-


From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 5:01 am 2007

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
> reported to you earlier:
> 
>   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
>   #2319:
>   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;

That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities which
I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.

But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and from
patches which later alter that code.  A bit.
-


From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 5:44 am 2007

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
> > reported to you earlier:
> > 
> >   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> >   #2319:
> >   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> 
> That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities 
> which I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.
> 
> But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and from 
> patches which later alter that code.  A bit.

well, the two variants is:

	max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;

	max_load = 0;
	this_load = 0;
	total_load = 0;
	total_pwr = 0;

and the first one is more readable and more compact. (as long as the 
conceptual 'type' of the variables is the same - which it is in this 
case.)

anyway, this is something where reasonable people might disagree, and a 
tool should not force it one way or another. And this is the second time 
i raised this very example and Andy ignored my feedback and failed to 
notice the structural problem behind it (that a tool should only warn by 
default if it is _sure_ that there is a problem - otherwise the tool 
cannot be used for effective [i.e. automated] quality control), so i'm 
raising this point again, in a slightly more irritated tone ;-)

	Ingo
-


From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 5:22 am 2007

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:01:32AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:40:03 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > i ran it over kernel/sched.c and there are many bogus warnings that i 
> > reported to you earlier:
> > 
> >   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> >   #2319:
> >   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> 
> That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities which
> I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.
> 
> But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and from
> patches which later alter that code.  A bit.

I tend to agree, watching the automatic replies from checkpatch, the
majority of these are "justifiable" in their context.  I think I'll
lower this one to a CHECK in the next release.

-apw
-


From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 5:39 am 2007

* Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> > >   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> > >   #2319:
> > >   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> > 
> > That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities 
> > which I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.
> > 
> > But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and 
> > from patches which later alter that code.  A bit.
> 
> I tend to agree, watching the automatic replies from checkpatch, the 
> majority of these are "justifiable" in their context.  I think I'll 
> lower this one to a CHECK in the next release.

what matters is that only items should be displayed that i _can_ fix. 
With v8 i was able to make kernel/sched*.c almost noise-free, but with 
v9 and v10 that's not possible anymore. And the moment the default 
output of the tool cannot be made 'empty', we've lost the biggest 
battle. Seeing the same bogus (or borderline) warnings again and again 
destroys the biggest dynamic that could get people to use this tool more 
often: the gratification of having a 'perfectly clean' file/patch.

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.

	Ingo
-


From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 6:00 am 2007

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
> > > >   WARNING: multiple assignments should be avoided
> > > >   #2319:
> > > >   +       max_load = this_load = total_load = total_pwr = 0;
> > > 
> > > That warning is non-bogus, although this is one of the bogosities 
> > > which I personally don't bother fixing or making a fuss about.
> > > 
> > > But I do think it detracts from the readability of the code, and 
> > > from patches which later alter that code.  A bit.
> > 
> > I tend to agree, watching the automatic replies from checkpatch, the 
> > majority of these are "justifiable" in their context.  I think I'll 
> > lower this one to a CHECK in the next release.
> 
> what matters is that only items should be displayed that i _can_ fix. 
> With v8 i was able to make kernel/sched*.c almost noise-free, but with 
> v9 and v10 that's not possible anymore. And the moment the default 
> output of the tool cannot be made 'empty', we've lost the biggest 
> battle. Seeing the same bogus (or borderline) warnings again and again 
> destroys the biggest dynamic that could get people to use this tool more 
> often: the gratification of having a 'perfectly clean' file/patch.
> 
> 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.
v8 is silent about sched.c because it is not checking very much of it,
the logical extension of your position is to run 0.1 as that didn't check
anything.  v9 and 10 carry checks for most of the binary operators which
were not there before.  Due as I have mentioned before to the complexity
of handling the unary/binary scism that C has for those operators and
our different spacing requirement for each mode.

Whilst I can see that it is gratifying that a patch or file is
violations free where there are stylistic aberations in it they should
be reported.  Where those are questionble showing those as "CHECK" is
not unreasonable.  I will add a "--no-check" for you so that those are
suppressed based on the assumption you know what you are doing.

I think it is clear that we differ on what should and should not be
output by default.  Clever people are able to opt out of the warnings,
of things they think they dissagree with.  It is the people with little
experience who need the most guidance and those people who the tool
should target by default.  You cannot expect someone with no experience
to know they need to add '--i-need-more-help' whereas _you_ I can expect
to say '--leave-me-alone' or indeed to make the call that the output is
plain wrong and _you_ know you should ignore it.

Fundamentally I am not trying to help the people who are careful but
those who do not know better.  As for the false positives, those I am
always interested in and always striving to remove, as they annoy me as
much as the next man.

-apw
-


From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 12:51 pm 2007

Hi Andy.
> I think it is clear that we differ on what should and should not be
> output by default.  Clever people are able to opt out of the warnings,
> of things they think they dissagree with.  It is the people with little
> experience who need the most guidance and those people who the tool
> should target by default.  You cannot expect someone with no experience
> to know they need to add '--i-need-more-help' whereas _you_ I can expect
> to say '--leave-me-alone' or indeed to make the call that the output is
> plain wrong and _you_ know you should ignore it.

The original purpose was to catch the most tivial coding style errors.
But then people started to be far too innovative and we now ended
up with a checkpatch that try to check for every lillte glory detail.

It would be much preferable to have a checkpatch - and that may be an
incarnation of the current one or a new one.
What it should do would be to catch the trivialities that we see happens
in many patch submissions like:

a) wrong patch format (-p1, unified diff)
b) Whitespace versus tabs
c) PascalCasing in new functions
d) excessive line length
e) C99 comments '//' (not that I see why they are banned)

and maybe a few more trivial chacks.

This would benefit from a very low false-positive rate and it could then
be used as a patch-bot.

As it is now where it tries to check for everything and a bit more
it generates too much noise so a patch-bot usage is not possible.
And users get annoyed by the excessive output.

If we then have the same script that in a -pedantic mode generate
more noise - fine. But leave the default simple.

	Sam
-


From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 6:49 am 2007

* Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > 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.

you _still_ fail to understand (let alone address), the fundamental 
issues i raised many times. (see below for details)

> v8 is silent about sched.c because it is not checking very much of it,

the most usable checkpatch.pl version was v6/v7. It went downhill after 
that. Look at the script size versus the number of complaints about 
kernel/sched.c:

  size                          # warnings
  ----------------------------------------
  25383  checkpatch.pl.v6       5
  26038  checkpatch.pl.v7       6
  29603  checkpatch.pl.v8       65
  31160  checkpatch.pl.v9       24
  34950  checkpatch.pl.v10      28

i.e. size did not increase all that significantly, still the number of 
warnings has increased significantly - with little benefit.

and here's the breakdown for v10: out of 28 warnings, only 6 are 
legitimate! So the signal to noise ratio has worsened significantly 
since v6. One warning per 300 lines of sched.c is _not manageable_. It 
translates to _over 25 thousand false positives_ for the whole kernel.

every false warning has additive costs: i will have to ignore it from 
that point on, forever - and i frequently have to re-check the same 
thing again, and again - just to discover that the warning is still 
bogus.

the mails from me in your mbox during the past few months should be 
proof that i'm fully constructive regarding this matter and that i'm not 
striving for 100% level of perfection. I'm simply stating the obvious: 
your tool is less and less useful with every new version and more 
troubling than that is your apparent inability to realize what this 
whole issue is about. (see below for details)

> I think it is clear that we differ on what should and should not be 
> output by default.  Clever people are able to opt out of the warnings, 
> of things they think they dissagree with.  It is the people with 
> little experience who need the most guidance and those people who the 
> tool should target by default.  You cannot expect someone with no 
> experience to know they need to add '--i-need-more-help' whereas _you_ 
> I can expect to say '--leave-me-alone' or indeed to make the call that 
> the output is plain wrong and _you_ know you should ignore it.

you still dont get the point of this. This isnt about writing a tool 
that 'can' find something to complain about. This whole kernel source 
code quality task is about:

     _making kernel source code quality better_

not more, not less. If your tool outputs way too many false positives 
and way too many unimportant borderline cases, people will ignore the 
tool, and consequently YOU MAKE THE KERNEL'S SOURCE CODE WORSE than it 
could be. How hard is that to understand?? Having zero (or near zero) 
output from a checker mechanism is FUNDAMENTAL.

( and note that i was a goddamn early adopter of your tool, i'm a tester 
  and i gave you feedback, and i'm one of the few kernel hackers who 
  actually use your script as a mandatory component of their 
  patch-toolchain here and today. But your unchanged fundamentalistic
  attitude has turned me from a happy supporter of checkpatch.pl into an
  almost-opponent. If anything, that should be a warning shot for you. )

> Fundamentally I am not trying to help the people who are careful but 
> those who do not know better.  As for the false positives, those I am 
> always interested in and always striving to remove, as they annoy me 
> as much as the next man.

then remove most of those 22 false positives as a starter. I dont care 
if it's "hard/impossible" or not. If it cannot be coded like that, DONT 
output that particular type of check by default. Let people OPT IN if 
there's a reasonable chance for false positives.

( the same is true for gcc warnings: false positives are a huge PITA and
  they _CAUSE_ bugs because people have learned to ignore gcc warnings 
  and will accidentally ignore real bugs too. )

	Ingo
-


From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 9:21 am 2007

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> 
> you _still_ fail to understand (let alone address), the fundamental 
> issues i raised many times. (see below for details)

That is unfair.  Every time we discuss it I state that I disagree that
hiding mostly useful tests is a good thing.  I would love the tests to
be 100% accurate, but if I removed all the tests that can false positive
I would literally have none.  There is a balance to be struck and we
have significantly different ideas on where the balance is.

> > v8 is silent about sched.c because it is not checking very much of it,
> 
> the most usable checkpatch.pl version was v6/v7. It went downhill after 
> that. Look at the script size versus the number of complaints about 
> kernel/sched.c:
> 
>   size                          # warnings
>   ----------------------------------------
>   25383  checkpatch.pl.v6       5
>   26038  checkpatch.pl.v7       6
>   29603  checkpatch.pl.v8       65
>   31160  checkpatch.pl.v9       24
>   34950  checkpatch.pl.v10      28
> 
> i.e. size did not increase all that significantly, still the number of 
> warnings has increased significantly - with little benefit.
> 
> and here's the breakdown for v10: out of 28 warnings, only 6 are 
> legitimate! So the signal to noise ratio has worsened significantly 
> since v6. One warning per 300 lines of sched.c is _not manageable_. It 
> translates to _over 25 thousand false positives_ for the whole kernel.
> 
> every false warning has additive costs: i will have to ignore it from 
> that point on, forever - and i frequently have to re-check the same 
> thing again, and again - just to discover that the warning is still 
> bogus.
> 
> the mails from me in your mbox during the past few months should be 
> proof that i'm fully constructive regarding this matter and that i'm not 
> striving for 100% level of perfection. I'm simply stating the obvious: 
> your tool is less and less useful with every new version and more 
> troubling than that is your apparent inability to realize what this 
> whole issue is about. (see below for details)
>
> > I think it is clear that we differ on what should and should not be 
> > output by default.  Clever people are able to opt out of the warnings, 
> > of things they think they dissagree with.  It is the people with 
> > little experience who need the most guidance and those people who the 
> > tool should target by default.  You cannot expect someone with no 
> > experience to know they need to add '--i-need-more-help' whereas _you_ 
> > I can expect to say '--leave-me-alone' or indeed to make the call that 
> > the output is plain wrong and _you_ know you should ignore it.
> 
> you still dont get the point of this. This isnt about writing a tool 
> that 'can' find something to complain about. This whole kernel source 
> code quality task is about:
> 
>      _making kernel source code quality better_
> 
> not more, not less. If your tool outputs way too many false positives 
> and way too many unimportant borderline cases, people will ignore the 
> tool, and consequently YOU MAKE THE KERNEL'S SOURCE CODE WORSE than it 
> could be. How hard is that to understand?? Having zero (or near zero) 
> output from a checker mechanism is FUNDAMENTAL.
> 
> ( and note that i was a goddamn early adopter of your tool, i'm a tester 
>   and i gave you feedback, and i'm one of the few kernel hackers who 
>   actually use your script as a mandatory component of their 
>   patch-toolchain here and today. But your unchanged fundamentalistic
>   attitude has turned me from a happy supporter of checkpatch.pl into an
>   almost-opponent. If anything, that should be a warning shot for you. )

That is just stupid, I am no fundamentalist.  I personally care not what
tests there are or indeed if they are enabled by default.  I personally
feel you are more capable of turning off things you think are wrong, and
as such the default should be to offer all of the tests.  You disagree,
that doesn't make either of us fundamentalist.

> > Fundamentally I am not trying to help the people who are careful but 
> > those who do not know better.  As for the false positives, those I am 
> > always interested in and always striving to remove, as they annoy me 
> > as much as the next man.
> 
> then remove most of those 22 false positives as a starter. I dont care 
> if it's "hard/impossible" or not. If it cannot be coded like that, DONT 
> output that particular type of check by default. Let people OPT IN if 
> there's a reasonable chance for false positives.
> 
> ( the same is true for gcc warnings: false positives are a huge PITA and
>   they _CAUSE_ bugs because people have learned to ignore gcc warnings 
>   and will accidentally ignore real bugs too. )

Yes, but dispite that we don't just turn warnings off.  Even though they
produce false positives, as having them has some benefit.  My contention
is that checkpatch is following that same approach, risking some false
positives to try and catch problems.


Anyhow.  I have already added a --check/--no-check option which controls
the more subjective tests which will be in the next release; though its
likely the option name will be something more useful by then.

The only question is whether this should default to on.  You are voting
off.  I personally think on.

Andrew?  Randy?  Joel?

-apw
-


From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 28, 1:46 pm 2007

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:38 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
>
> [bunfight]
>

oy, knock it off.

> Anyhow.  I have already added a --check/--no-check option which controls

-strict?

> the more subjective tests which will be in the next release; though its
> likely the option name will be something more useful by then.
> 
> The only question is whether this should default to on.  You are voting
> off.  I personally think on.
> 
> Andrew?  Randy?  Joel?
> 

off, I'd say.  That way people are more likely to use it.  Or, more
accurately, will have less excuses to not use it.

-


From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update checkpatch.pl to version 0.10
Date: Sep 29, 5:22 am 2007

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:46:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:38 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:49:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > [bunfight]
> >
> 
> oy, knock it off.

Really not trying to have a bunfight, honest.

> > Anyhow.  I have already added a --check/--no-check option which controls
> 
> -strict?
> 
> > the more subjective tests which will be in the next release; though its
> > likely the option name will be something more useful by then.
> > 
> > The only question is whether this should default to on.  You are voting
> > off.  I personally think on.
> > 
> > Andrew?  Randy?  Joel?
> > 
> 
> off, I'd say.  That way people are more likely to use it.  Or, more
> accurately, will have less excuses to not use it.

Ok, then I think thats 2 for on and 3 for off.  So off it is.

I was tending towards --subjective for the tests which are err more
subjective.  --strict is good too.  Perhaps I'll put both of those in as
aliases.

I will also review the tests which are warnings and checks (subjective)
and see if any are now miss-categorised.

-apw
-