On 25/09/16 16:17, SF Markus Elfring wrote: >> 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. To my mind there is a divide between the cost of making changes like this as a result of initial review and that of doing it on existing code. I don't think this one is worth while for existing code. > > 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 linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- 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
