lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: checkpatch potential false positive
On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:29:18AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> Hello.
>
> > > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> > > staging tree checkpatch emits
> > >
> > > --------------
> > > visorchipset.c
> > > --------------
> > > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > > #1050: FILE: visorchipset.c:1050:
> > > + char *envp[] = { env_cmd, env_id, env_state, env_bus, env_dev,
> > >
> > > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > > #1140: FILE: visorchipset.c:1140:
> > > + char *envp[] = { env_selftest, NULL };
> > >
> > > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 1694 lines checked
> > >
> > > I may be wrong but I think the code in question is clean and
> > > correct. Since checkpatch is saying this _might_ be better ... perhaps
> > > checkpatch could emit CHECK instead of WARNING for this?
>
> CHECKs aren't enabled by default except for a few
> directories and this warning is much more commonly
> correct than incorrect.

Ok, thanks.

> checkpatch will always have both false positives and
> false negatives. It's stupid, people generally aren't.
>
> Just ignore checkpatch bleats that aren't appropriate.

Got it, cheers Andy.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-08 20:55    [W:0.626 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site