Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:11:04 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: put_device: reduce false positives
Message-ID: <20190326101103.GH32613@kadam>
References: <1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
 <179bbdd1-3fcb-bba5-52b3-7f96973c7650@web.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903232104030.5660@hadrien>
 <20190326084512.GC32590@kadam>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903261037320.5021@hadrien>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903261037320.5021@hadrien>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:38:43AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:06:54PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Don't complain about a return when this function returns "&pdev->dev".
> > > >
> > > > Would this information qualify to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
> > >
> > > Fixes tags relate to stable kernels, so that one can see which stable
> > > kernels a particular patch should be propagated to.  There is no need to
> > > propagate patches on semantic patches to stable kernels.  People who run
> > > stable kernels are interested in their behavior, not the bug finding
> > > rules that they contain.
> >
> > The Fixes tag is not just about stable...  For example, we use them for
> > statistics to see how quickly bugs get fixed etc.
> 
> OK.  But still do we need fixes tags for bug finding rules?  Perhaps if
> the previous version was really broken, and it would be really undesirable
> to use it.

It's not worth resending a patch for that, but I probably would use the
fixes tag.  It depends on your definition of "bug" really...  I tell
people not to use Fixes for spelling mistakes and unused variables.  But
I do use the Fixes tag for things like "an off by one in a sanity check
which doesn't affect run time because the index is always correct".

regards,
dan carpenter