[Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] static checking; COMPILE_TEST

Mark Brown broonie at kernel.org
Fri Jul 19 10:21:48 UTC 2013


On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:21:01AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 07/17/2013 11:59 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Indeed, and this has been a real problem with some of the reports
> > from checkers - I see a lot of patches which do things like just
> > set a variable to some value without any analysis to see if there's
> > code paths that should be setting it but don't.

> Yes, this is exactly my point. There are outputs of analyzers (I give
> coverity as an example), but maintainers ignore those (one random
> example is at [1]). Then people which do not understand the code well

Odd, I've not seen any of those for some considerable time - I had
thought they'd stopped sending them at all.  

In that case I suspect the way the report is generated really doesn't
help - you've got a page or so of stuff that's just illegible links to
some web sites (the actual information is in the mail but people might
well not read that far) and it's sent to the kernel at large (there's
both DRM and net in that lot).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2013-discuss/attachments/20130719/c4c40f93/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Ksummit-2013-discuss mailing list