Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:07:37 +0000 | From | Andy Whitcroft <> | Subject | Re: gitwatch: RSS feed of checkpatch+coccinelle against new commits in mainline |
| |
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:20:48PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote: > >> I've written a script that follows the mainline git repository and > >> runs checkpatch against all new commits. The result is available as an > >> RSS stream: > >> > >> http://kernel.org/~vegard/gitwatch.rss > >> > >> Only commits with warnings or errors are shown. Files that change are > >> also searched for known/frequent coding errors using Coccinelle and a > >> selection of the semantic patches found on the Coccinelle website. > > > > Thats pretty intresting. Looking at some of the cochinelle output I am > > a little confused as to what its saying. Am I right in thinking that > > for those reports that a proposed patch is printed, after the comment > > for the original patch? If so it might be helpful to say something like > > 'proposed modificiation' just before the patchlet. > > You are correct, those are the modifications that would have been made > by the semantic patch. I agree, it might look like the log text > belongs to the patch below, which is wrong. We are also planning to > add a description to each of the semantic patches so that a better > explanation is given for the change.
Yes a "You should use NULL not 0" before the patch would make it clearer for sure.
> > Also which version of checkpatch is this output being generated with? > > The one at the head of the git tree or something else? I see a couple > > of false positives in there that I know I have fixed already. > > Yes, it's a copy of the one in linux-2.6.git (after v2.6.28-rc4). The > file itself says 0.24. Which false positives were you thinking about?
There are a couple in there, one is a comment tracking issue and there is one on ':' tracking for things of this form:
int foo:1, bar:2, baz:1;
Fixes for these are in my tree, not sure if Andrew has them yet. I am a little behind and intending on rolling up a new block of changes this week.
-apw
| |