Am Freitag, 28. September 2007 schrieb Andy Whitcroft:
quoted text
> > 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
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/