lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: checkkpatch (in)sanity ?
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 01:15:57PM -0400, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 22:47 -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote:
>
> > Would you agree that by default we shouldn't show anything that's
> > not an error/defect?
>
> Not particularly, no.

I think that we need to figure out this disagreement first then. My claim is that checkpatch's output isn't useful.

Based on your bash snippet, populated with the KS program committee + the first few maintainers I spotted on 'git log':

commiter commits issues
arnd 858 2155
axboe 53 22
corbet 15 9
davem 55 81
grant.likely 2 0
gregkh 38 46
hch 393 581
James.Bottomley 15 15
martin.petersen 18 20
mchehab 678 1042
mgorman 104 256
mingo 58 192
paulmck 176 68
peterz 226 511
rostedt 123 178
shuahkh 53 6
tglx 200 287
torvalds 64 89
tytso 37 77
viro 350 256

And for the last 10,000 commits in the log, that script has observed 10,783 issues.

It'll be interesting to hear from these people about their view of checkpatch, but IMO when on average there are more issues than commits I can suggest two possible causes:

1. People are used to ignore checkpatch warnings.
2. People aren't using checkpatch.

Can you really make the claim that this is how checkpatch is supposed to be working?

--

Thanks,
Sasha
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:58    [W:0.122 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site