On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 07:37:34AM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:25:30PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > > > > And for the static analysis finding, we need to find a way to ignore this > > > > > finding without simply ignoring all findings or new findings that just > > > > > look very similar to the original finding, but which are valid. > > > > > > > > Then I suggest you fix the tool that "flagged" this, surely this is not > > > > the only thing it detected with a test like this, right? > > > > > > > > What tool reported this? > > > > > > > > > > Sudip and I are following on clang analyzer findings. > > > > > > On linux-next, there is new build target 'make clang-analyzer' that > > > outputs a bunch of warnings, just as you would expect from such static > > > analysis tools. > > > > Why not fix the things that it finds that are actually issues? If there > > are no actual issues found, then perhaps you should use a better tool? :) > > > > Completely agree. That is why I was against adding comments here and > elsewhere just to have the "good feeling of doing something" after the > tool reported a warning and we spend some time understanding the code to > conclude that we now understand the code better than the tool. > > If you know a better tool, we will use it :) unfortunately, there is no > easy way of finding out that a tool just reports false positives and not a > single true positive among 1000 reports... Who is "forcing" you to use any tool? What is your goal here? greg k-h
