> It's not an inappropriate identifier as it stands. The point is > that it could be better. Thanks for your interest in clarifying further improvement possibilities. >>> Which tool is spitting it out? >> >> Are you looking for any special tool? > I was wondering how you identified these particular > issues as I wanted to know the logic behind the test. Do you get any related ideas from information in a message like "Source code review around jump label usage" (from 2015-12-11)? https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/11/378 https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<566ABCD9.1060404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Which test do you mean? > Whatever you used to find these jump labels There is a general possibility that dedicated scripts for the semantic patch language can also adjust jump labels as I suggested it for five functions in this software. > (the patch series description suggested it was a static checker). The corresponding five patches are just a result of a source code review by the means of a current text editor wit extra support for programming. How do you think about to improve the capabilities of tools for advanced static source code analysis any further? Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
