Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757448Ab0AOMoL (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:44:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757171Ab0AOMoK (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:44:10 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com ([209.85.218.227]:55541 "EHLO mail-bw0-f227.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932167Ab0AOMoJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:44:09 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=CceCrc39Ci/2gupQ/Xm8KdDURMMBaQsnx66/xxACaygruPHeMpCy2dqWfKt4idWpfk cFJ6SBXvK7vnIdcxC44ZgxwXrHVThQ+qegu7DEM+YgitY50HyEE7/6HbWRMDcFySiuoJ 6FqwjHbwclX4NvUFpvy6oclVnP36Px4RV+TyE= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4B502C6B.7000802@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20100115.005445.263291449.davem@davemloft.net> <20100115.012233.202457727.davem@davemloft.net> <84144f021001150149u3b784d26g1822be6c5c3ecbf@mail.gmail.com> <20100115110845.GB28625@sirena.org.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:44:06 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0c5e83a7f64d01f9 Message-ID: <84144f021001150444j4f7f9dexe8486d06b7e45205@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Changelog quality From: Pekka Enberg To: Julia Lawall Cc: Mark Brown , David Miller , stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, adi@hexapodia.org, nm127@freemail.hu, david.vrabel@csr.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cocci@diku.dk, Andrew Morton , Nicolas Palix Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Julia, On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > On the other hand, one has to take into account the fact that at least in > my case, the patches that are submitted are the ones that I have carefully > checked for correctness. ?Having a make target in the kernel might give > some suggestion of quality that is perhaps not appropriate? I don't see the problem. No tool is perfect so the only thing that matters is whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. The problem I see with Coccinelle is that the scripts seem to be lost in a black hole (even if they are part of the changelog) which also means that your efforts don't scale. There seems to be a universal law regarding kernel development: if something is out-of-tree, it simply doesn't matter from "people scalability" point of view. It doesn't really matter if you like it or not but that's the way things are right now. I, for one, would love to run Coccinelle on the tree I maintain but unfortunately the tool fails my "can I set it up in two minutes" rule so I haven't gotten around to give it a try. And I suspect I am not the only one. So why not try it out? If the signal to noise ratio is too low and we can't fix that, we can always just remove the damn thing from the tree. Speculating whether or not something will work seems pretty pointless to me when you don't have any hard data. Pekka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/