Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Software evolution around “checkpatch.pl”? | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:42:57 -0800 |
| |
On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 15:57 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:59:43 -0800 > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 14:53 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > While it would be great to improve checkpatches false > > > positive rate, it's very nature as a string matcher makes > > > this hard. > > > > true. > > > > what are the false positives you see? > > > > This particular case is only 'sort of' a false positive > in the warning that a message printed on a memory allocation > failure 'may' not add any information over the generic case.
Right. So it's not a 'false positive' at all. Are there any actual 'false positives' you know of?
> Very hard to judge on whether it is useful to know more than > an allocation failed somewhere or not. > > Message makes this clear: > > “WARNING: Possible unnecessary 'out of memory' message” > > (from the script “checkpatch.pl”) > > We also have the balance between any changes to existing code > adding 'some' maintenance overhead vs changing this stuff > in a new driver - which is what checkpatch is really intended > for.
There's almost zero maintenance overhead here. The time it takes for the back and forth replies is likely larger.
> So I think checkpatch is striking the right balance here in > how it warns. Obviously if it could assess the text > and come to an informed decision that would be great but > we are some way from that ;)
The 'informed' bit is difficult as it is mostly a political problem.
This particular message really is unnecessary as the generic dump_stack on any normal allocation (ie: without __GFP_WARN) already emits location specific information.
Removing these messages can help make the kernel image smaller and thereby help make these OOM messages a tiny bit less likely.
I just wish Markus would improve his consistently terrible commit messages that just restate the action being done and detail _why_ a particular thing _should_ be done.
His acceptance rate would improve as many of these back and forth replies for what trivialities he posts as patches would be minimized.
| |