Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148850-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:51:12 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Cc: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
	Martin Tuma <martin.tuma@digiteqautomotive.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>,
	Hugues Fruchet <hugues.fruchet@foss.st.com>,
	Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@foss.st.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
	Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>,
	Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>, Sergey Kozlov <serjk@netup.ru>,
	Abylay Ospan <aospan@netup.ru>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>,
	Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
	Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.k.varbanov@gmail.com>,
	Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@quicinc.com>,
	Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	Benjamin Mugnier <benjamin.mugnier@foss.st.com>,
	Sylvain Petinot <sylvain.petinot@foss.st.com>,
	Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@jmondi.org>,
	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>,
	Niklas =?utf-8?Q?S=C3=B6derlund?= <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] media: Fix coccinelle warning/errors
Message-ID: <20240417155112.GQ12561@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
References: <20240415-fix-cocci-v1-0-477afb23728b@chromium.org>
 <a003494c-a1a9-4fcd-83d8-766a75d6bbb2@moroto.mountain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a003494c-a1a9-4fcd-83d8-766a75d6bbb2@moroto.mountain>

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:47:17AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> In my opinion, it's better to just ignore old warnings.

I agree. Whatever checkers we enable, whatever code we test, there will
always be false positives. A CI system needs to be able to ignore those
false positives and only warn about new issues.

> When code is new the warnings are going to be mostly correct.  The
> original author is there and knows what the code does.  Someone has
> the hardware ready to test any changes.  High value, low burden.
> 
> When the code is old only the false positives are left.  No one is
> testing the code.  It's low value, high burden.
> 
> Plus it puts static checker authors in a difficult place because now
> people have to work around our mistakes.  It creates animosity.
> 
> Now we have to hold ourselves to a much higher standard for false
> positives.  It sounds like I'm complaining and lazy, right?  But Oleg
> Drokin has told me previously that I spend too much time trying to
> silence false positives instead of working on new code.  He's has a
> point which is that actually we have limited amount of time and we have
> to make choices about what's the most useful thing we can do.
> 
> So what I do and what the zero day bot does is we look at warnings one
> time and we re-review old warnings whenever a file is changed.
> 
> Kernel developers are very good at addressing static checker warnings
> and fixing the real issues...  People sometimes ask me to create a
> database of warnings which I have reviewed but the answer is that
> anything old can be ignored.  As I write this, I've had a thought that
> instead of a database of false positives maybe we should record a
> database of real bugs to ensure that the fixes for anything real is
> applied.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart