Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: ltc4282: add support for the LTC4282 chip

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2023-11-29 at 09:45 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 29/11/2023 09:35, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-11-28 at 10:03 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/28/23 08:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 27/11/2023 17:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:12:14AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > > On 27/11/2023 09:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Wait, this was not even unusual test, just standard compile, which means
> > > > > > you did not do basic tests on your end. You must build your new driver
> > > > > > with W=1, smatch, sparse and coccinelle before sending upstream.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, sparse is lagging in development, for the last year it's at least two
> > > > > times it broke kernel builds because of being not ready for the new stuff
> > > > > used
> > > > > in the kernel. Do we have anybody to sync this? I don't think so, hence
> > > > > requiring this from developer is doubtful. Otherwise I agree, that basic
> > > > > compilation with GCC/LLVM must be done.
> > > > 
> > > > Sparse still detects several issues and handles lock annotations, so it
> > > > is useful. But if you disagree with that part, I still insist on Smatch
> > > > (which is actively developed and works great) and Coccinelle (also
> > > > actively developed).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Quite frankly, for my part I would be more than happy if people would read
> > > and follow Documentation/hwmon/submitting-patches.rst. Most submitters don't
> > > bother. That doesn't even mention building with W=1 (the much more optimistic
> > > me who wrote that document several years ago thought that would be obvious),
> > > much less running any source code analysis tools . Feel free to submit a patch
> > > to strengthen the wording there. If you do that, it would have to be more
> > > explicit
> > > then "run smatch" or "run coccinelle" because hardly anyone would know how
> > > to do that.
> > > 
> > 
> > IMO, submitting patches to linux is already not the most straightforward thing in
> > the
> 
> True...
> 
> > world. If we are now going to ask to run smatch, cocci, sparse and so on, we will
> > scare even more developers from the community... I mean, the bots are also in
> > place
> 
> This is not related to Linux at all. When you develop any C or C++ code,
> you run these tools. Upstream or downstream, does not matter. Why would
> you not use automated, free and easy tools to detect errors in your
> code? It's just a matter of professional approach to your code.
> 

That's true but still are too many things to remember for every single change/driver
one sends upstream. Yeah, I might just wrap b4 in a script to run more advanced
checks on my patches before 'send'.

> > to help with these kind of more advanced analysis, right?
> 
> They do not come for free (someone is paying for them even if they are
> for free to you) and they have delays in responses.
> 

Yeah, but actually thanks to you, I discovered I can have my private branches covered
by lkp (and I got the PR merged already) and I do not mind having 1/2 day delay for
sending patches. So maybe that will help me avoid these kind of mistakes.

- Nuno Sá
> 






[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux