On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:46:45PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
quoted text
>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
>

Maybe checkpatch.pl needs an option '-W' to turn on/off those vexed "noise".
(It seems that 'q|quiet' doesn't do as much as what it hints.)

;-)

-- 
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."

-
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/