[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:0.020 / U:53.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site