Hi Lukas, On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:37 AM Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > <snip> > > > > 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. I think you are missing the point here. I sent the comment not because of any tool, I sent it because the code there was not that simple like other drivers and at a first glance its not apparent why there are no error checks. And, afaik, the only purpose of comments is to make the source code easier to understand. -- Regards Sudip
