Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: coccinelle: api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource: remove useless script | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Sun, 20 Oct 2019 07:45:50 +0200 |
| |
>>> I think part of the issue is that the script reports a WARNING
Would anybody like to change this category to “INFO”?
>> How much does this information influence really the stress tolerance >> and change resistance (or acceptance) for the presented collateral evolution? >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource.cocci > > -ENOPARSE.
* Automated processes can trigger also big amounts of possible adjustments.
* The software development capacity will vary for affected components during the years.
* Implementing changes is a recurring project management task, isn't it?
>>> for something that is definitely correct code, >> >> Can related software improvement possibilities be taken into account >> again under other circumstances? > > These patches provide no improvement whatsoever.
* Do you find information from the description of a corresponding commit 7945f929f1a77a1c8887a97ca07f87626858ff42 ("drivers: provide devm_platform_ioremap_resource()") reasonable? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/drivers/base/platform.c
* How do you think about to compare any differences with software build results?
> As pointed out, they mostly introduce bugs.
Would you like to check any error statistics in more detail?
> Providing Coccinelle scripts that scream about perfectly valid code is pointless,
They usually point opportunities out for further collateral evolution, don't they?
> and the result is actively harmful.
You might not like some changes for a while.
> If said script was providing a correct semantic patch
I got the impression that this can also happen often enough. Would you like to check the concrete transformation failure rate once more?
> instead of being an incentive for people to churn untested patches > that span the whole tree, that'd be a different story.
Various developers got motivated to achieve something (possible improvements?) also by the means of available software analysis tools. Mistakes can then happen as usual during such adjustment attempts.
> But that's not what this is about.
I guess that your software development concerns can be clarified a bit more.
Regards, Markus
| |