lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] coccinelle: put_device: reduce false positives


On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:38:43AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:06:54PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Don't complain about a return when this function returns "&pdev->dev".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this information qualify to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
> > > >
> > > > Fixes tags relate to stable kernels, so that one can see which stable
> > > > kernels a particular patch should be propagated to. There is no need to
> > > > propagate patches on semantic patches to stable kernels. People who run
> > > > stable kernels are interested in their behavior, not the bug finding
> > > > rules that they contain.
> > >
> > > The Fixes tag is not just about stable... For example, we use them for
> > > statistics to see how quickly bugs get fixed etc.
> >
> > OK. But still do we need fixes tags for bug finding rules? Perhaps if
> > the previous version was really broken, and it would be really undesirable
> > to use it.
>
> It's not worth resending a patch for that, but I probably would use the
> fixes tag. It depends on your definition of "bug" really... I tell
> people not to use Fixes for spelling mistakes and unused variables. But
> I do use the Fixes tag for things like "an off by one in a sanity check
> which doesn't affect run time because the index is always correct".

OK, thanks.

julia
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-26 11:16    [W:0.120 / U:5.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site