On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, shuah wrote: > > It's better to ignore checkpatch and other scripts when they are wrong. > > (unless the warning message inspires you to make the code more readable > > for humans). > > > > It gets confusing when to ignore and when not to. It takes work to > figure out and it is subjective. > In this case, it's not subjective because checkpatch is clearly not working as intended. I don't feel like "checkpatch clean" is a useful criteria for applying patches. If someone sends a patch and I can spot a bunch of checkpatch issues with my bare eyeballs then I get slightly annoyed for wasting my time. But as a reviewer, I mostly care about my own judgement. Can I understand what the code is doing? It is subjective, but I'm smarter than a Perl script and I try to be kind to people. The other things about warnings is that I always encourage people to just ignore old warnings. If you're running Smatch and you see a warning in ancient code that means I saw it five years ago and didn't fix it so it's a false positive. Old warnings are always 100% false positives. regards, dan carpenter
