>>> I think part of the issue is that the script reports a WARNING Would anybody like to change this category to “INFO”? >> How much does this information influence really the stress tolerance >> and change resistance (or acceptance) for the presented collateral evolution? >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource.cocci > > -ENOPARSE. * Automated processes can trigger also big amounts of possible adjustments. * The software development capacity will vary for affected components during the years. * Implementing changes is a recurring project management task, isn't it? >>> for something that is definitely correct code, >> >> Can related software improvement possibilities be taken into account >> again under other circumstances? > > These patches provide no improvement whatsoever. * Do you find information from the description of a corresponding commit 7945f929f1a77a1c8887a97ca07f87626858ff42 ("drivers: provide devm_platform_ioremap_resource()") reasonable? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/drivers/base/platform.c * How do you think about to compare any differences with software build results? > As pointed out, they mostly introduce bugs. Would you like to check any error statistics in more detail? > Providing Coccinelle scripts that scream about perfectly valid code is pointless, They usually point opportunities out for further collateral evolution, don't they? > and the result is actively harmful. You might not like some changes for a while. > If said script was providing a correct semantic patch I got the impression that this can also happen often enough. Would you like to check the concrete transformation failure rate once more? > instead of being an incentive for people to churn untested patches > that span the whole tree, that'd be a different story. Various developers got motivated to achieve something (possible improvements?) also by the means of available software analysis tools. Mistakes can then happen as usual during such adjustment attempts. > But that's not what this is about. I guess that your software development concerns can be clarified a bit more. Regards, Markus
