Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Test for kmalloc/memset(0) pairs | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:26:20 -0400 |
| |
On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 15:39 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> Something that has crossed my mind over the last few days was the idea > of splitting checkpatch into two tools. > One for checking CodingStyle issues, and one for checking for actual > code problems like the memset example. > > The motivation for such is that I think it's pretty clear that many maintainers > never run checkpatch on patches they queue up before pushing to Linus... > > $ scripts/checkpatch.pl ~/Mail/upstream/2.6.39/head-March-18-2011 | wc -l > 2361 >
I run it on all my patches. But there are some warnings that I ignore. Sometimes I don't split the 80char lines if doing so makes the code even uglier.
> The bulk of this is all "missing space here" "don't put a space there" type > fluff that most maintainers just don't care about. Any valuable warnings > are lost in the noise. If we had a separate tool to check for real flaws, > (or even a way to suppress the stylistic warnings from the existing one) > maybe more maintainers would run their changes through it.
As I replied with my phone, having a suppress warnings would be nice.
checkpatch -e patch
where -e is errors only?
> > I dunno, maybe I'm just a crazy dreamer too, but I think many people > have written checkpatch off as useless in its current incarnation.
Well I and I'm sure Ingo use it quite a bit. I'm sure there are others that do too.
I would really like to disable warnings, as the patches to my magic macros break all sorts of checkpatch formatting rules, but real errors may still exist. And because of that, I seldom use checkpatch on patches that modify those macros.
Note, I've even found myself running checkpatch on non Linux code too ;)
-- Steve
| |