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:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:12:55 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v6] lib/list-test: add a test for
 the 'list' doubly linked list
Message-ID: <20191030191255.GD18421@kadam>
References: <20191024224631.118656-1-davidgow@google.com>
 <0cb1d948-0da3-eb0f-c58f-ae3a785dd0dd@kernel.org>
 <CABVgOSmCHbGjZBjeWSbPEZbJw22SaBQnoO77xxNzN_ugAwzNiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191030104217.GA18421@kadam>
 <42a8270d-ed6f-d29f-5e71-7b76a074b63e@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42a8270d-ed6f-d29f-5e71-7b76a074b63e@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:27:12AM -0600, shuah wrote:
> > It's better to ignore checkpatch and other scripts when they are wrong.
> > (unless the warning message inspires you to make the code more readable
> > for humans).
> > 
> 
> It gets confusing when to ignore and when not to. It takes work to
> figure out and it is subjective.
> 

In this case, it's not subjective because checkpatch is clearly not
working as intended.

I don't feel like "checkpatch clean" is a useful criteria for applying
patches.  If someone sends a patch and I can spot a bunch of checkpatch
issues with my bare eyeballs then I get slightly annoyed for wasting my
time.  But as a reviewer, I mostly care about my own judgement.  Can I
understand what the code is doing?  It is subjective, but I'm smarter
than a Perl script and I try to be kind to people.

The other things about warnings is that I always encourage people to
just ignore old warnings.  If you're running Smatch and you see a
warning in ancient code that means I saw it five years ago and didn't
fix it so it's a false positive.  Old warnings are always 100% false
positives.

regards,
dan carpenter