Thank you for pointing places where some job can be done. I'll definitely check it and do my best to clean it up. > Is there something specific you are interested in working on? My original goal was to find out how fsck works, check if there is a standard API for all set of fsck.* utilities and as a result write a new one for fuse.cryfs filesystem. Regards, Vlad ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On August 13, 2018 4:37 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:50:52AM +0000, ykp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > So.... why? > > > > There is no great reason behind. I believe that evidently buggy code > > needs to be fixed (or removed). > > Yeah, cppcheck is not the best tool. In this case it was a way for me > > to get along with both: e2fsprogs (I need a starting point to explore > > the code) and cppcheck. I'm not going to run this static analysis > > tool on a regular basis, treat it as a learning step. > > If you want to do code cleanup, it's better to either look for Clang > warnings or gcc-wall warnings. The first can be done via "CC=clang > configure". The second can be done via running "make gcc-wall" in a > particular build directory. After you fix gcc-wall issues, you can > run "make gcc-wall-new" to only run gcc -Wall on the modified files. > > You can run the test_script in the tests directory with the --valgrind > or --valgrind-leakcheck. > > In some cases we've deliberately neelded not fixed a warning when it's > not worth it. Long-term maintainability and code readability is > important. > > One file where a lot of cleanup can be needed --- not just blindly > cleaning up gcc -Wall or clang warnings, but rather restructing and > general code cleanup to make the code cleaner and consistent with > general e2fsprogs code quality and style --- is misc/e4defrag.c. > There is some interest by Jaco to add new featuers on e4defrag, so if > that is something you are interested in doing somme cleanup work on, > we'll need to do some air traffic control to avoid change conflicts. > > Is there something specific you are interested in working on? > Finally, one potential issue. Since you are working under an > encrypted channel and you aren't specifying your name, I assume you > are concerned about preserving your anonymity. One of the problems is > that if you are making code contributions, I need to know that who you > are. It doesn't have to be public --- you can let me know in private > --- but I do need to know your identity. There is precedence for this > --- "George Spellvin" is an occasional contributor to the Linux > kernel, but Linus Torvalds know who he is, and that's been considered > sufficient. Please see the description of the Developers > Certification of Origin (e.g., the "Signed-off-by" header) for the > background about what it is that we require code contributors to agree > when they contribute code. > > Cheers, > > - Ted
