On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Valentin, > > On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 21:26 +0200, Valentin Rothberg wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Will the Erlangen bot still spot ACORNSCSI_CONSTANTS as a potential >> > issue? >> >> No, undertaker-checkpatch won't complain about this. There are >> thousands of such cases (i.e., without CONFIG_ prefix) around in the >> code (mostly #ifdef DEBUG). But most of them are intentionally dead >> or related to debugging, so they are ignored to avoid having false >> positives. > > Well, in a few years time, once undertaker-checkpatch has stomped out > most of the faux Kconfig preprocessor checks, that might be an area to > cover too. Or is that issue, ie pointless preprocessor checks, harder > than one might naively think? To give a number from Linus' tree today: 4706 of such unprefixed dead and undead #ifdefs and 940 'real' ones. Most of them are intentional -- this doesn't mean that it's not a problem. Personally, I don't like to have code around that cannot at least be easily test compiled; we manually need to (un)define the identifiers. I like your proposal. For symbolic issues, we could even put that directly in checkkconfigsymbols.py, so a big part of the problem could be solved directly with Kernel tools. But I really hope that it won't take a few years until we get there : ) Valentin > Thanks, > > > Paul Bolle > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
