On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:59:43 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 14:53 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > While it would be great to improve checkpatches false > > positive rate, it's very nature as a string matcher makes > > this hard. > > true. > > what are the false positives you see? > This particular case is only 'sort of' a false positive in the warning that a message printed on a memory allocation failure 'may' not add any information over the generic case. Very hard to judge on whether it is useful to know more than an allocation failed somewhere or not. Message makes this clear: >“WARNING: Possible unnecessary 'out of memory' message” >(from the script “checkpatch.pl”) We also have the balance between any changes to existing code adding 'some' maintenance overhead vs changing this stuff in a new driver - which is what checkpatch is really intended for. So I think checkpatch is striking the right balance here in how it warns. Obviously if it could assess the text and come to an informed decision that would be great but we are some way from that ;) Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
