On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 22:12 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 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. checkpatch _is_ working as intended. It was never intended to be perfect. checkpatch _always_ depended on a reviewer deciding whether its output was appropriate. > I don't feel like "checkpatch clean" is a useful criteria for applying > patches. Nor do I. > 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. That'd be not absolute either because it depended on your historical judgment as to whether an old warning was in fact a defect or not. People make mistakes. Regex based scripts are by design stupid and untrustworthy. Mistakes will be made. Just fix the actual defects in code as soon as possible.
