On 01/07/15 07:29, Julia Lawall wrote:
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.
That would have been nice, but I also wanted to know what his subsequent
steps were to validate the output from cppcheck. I went through some
cppcheck web pages, but they only elaborate on what is can do and not
the how. But hey, it is an open-source tool so there is always the code
to check.
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.
Maybe upon removing an unused function it had a ripple effect on others
becoming unused as well? Still this is speculating and with this kind of
cleanup effort all over the place it is better to review the methodology.
Regards,
Arend
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
