[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Dead symbol elimination, stage 1
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> David Woodhouse <>:
> >
> > said:
> > > I read this as "I haven't fixed the problem because..." not as
> > > "Don't fix the problem." Please be more explicit next time so I won't
> > > step on your toes?
> >
> > "This is not a problem, please don't \"fix\" it".
> But it is. The more false positives I get in the dead-symbol reports,
> the harder it will be to spot real problems like that business in the
> ARM kernel.c file.


I found myself in similar situations in the past, and my solution was
to establish a small file of "do not report" symbols. I then use this
file to avoid reporting problems with items that I know are being
handled or are known false positives. Yes, it is not automagic, but
it does do the job.

The file might also include private notes as to the status of each
excluded symbol.

Eyal Lebedinsky ( <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.094 / U:6.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site