On 12/13/2017 2:00 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The *problem* is false positives, since locks and waiters in
kernel are not classified properly
So the problem is that those false positives apparently end up being a
big deal for the filesystem people.
I personally don't think the code itself has to be removed, but I do
think that it should never have been added on as part of the generic
lock proving, and should always have been a separate config option.
I admit it.
I also feel that you dismiss "false positives" much too easily. A
I don't dismiss the ones easily...
Anyway, I mostly agree with your whole opinion.
Thanks for replying.
false positive is a big problem - because it makes people ignore the
real cases (or just disable the functionality entirely).
It's why I am very quick to disable compiler warnings that have false
positives, for example. Just a couple of "harmless" false positive
warnings will poison the real warnings for people because they'll get
used to seeing warnings while building, and no longer actually look at
them.
Linus
--
Thanks,
Byungchul
