On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: > 2015-01-05 12:06 GMT+01:00 Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On 01/05/15 11:49, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> > >> Rickard Strandqvist<rickard_strandqvist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> As I hope you can see I have made some changes regarding the > >>> subject-line. Thought it was an advantage to be able to see which file > >>> I actually removed something from. There seems to be a big focus on > >>> getting right on subject-line right in recent weeks. > >>> > >>> I wonder why there is a script that takes a file name, and respond > >>> with an appropriate subject line? > > > > > > Is there a script for this? Anyway, I would say driver name is enough. > > Enough about the subject line ;-) I would like to give some general remarks > > as you seem to touch a lot of kernel code. First off, I think it is good to > > remove unused stuff. However, I would like some more explanation on your > > methodology apart from "partially found by using a static code analysis > > program". So a cover-letter explaining that would have been nice (maybe > > still is). Things like Kconfig option can affect whether function are used > > or not so how did you cover that. > > > > Regards, > > Arend > > > > > >> I don't think you can really automate this as some drivers do this a bit > >> differently. You always need to manually check the commit log. > >> > >>> But ok, I change my script accordingly. Should I submit the patch again? > >> > >> > >> Yes, please resubmit. > >> > > > > Hi Arend > > Yes, a script that had been excellent, I think! > I have one as part of my git send-email script, until a week ago, it > was enough that I removed the "drivers/" and changed all "/" to ": " > I have now been expanded my sed pipe a lot (tell me if anyone is interested) > But now I've seen everything from uppercase and [DIR], etc. > So I can not understand how anyone should be able to get the right > name without a good help. > > Sure i like to share how I use cppcheck, but is very hesitant to write > this with each patch mails I send though! > > I run: > cppcheck --force --quiet --enable=all . > > Or a specific file instead of . > > This will include, among other things get a lot of error message such, > +4000 for the kernel. > (style) The function 'xxx' is never used > > For these I made a script that searched through all the files after > the function name (cppcheck missed a few). And save the rest so I go > through them and possibly send patches. I think that the question was about what methodology is cppcheck using to find the given issue. But probably cppcheck is a black box that does whatever it does, so the user doesn't know what the rationale is. However, I think you mentioned that cppcheck found only some of the issues. You could thus describe what was the methodology for finding the other ones. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
