From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 597EE89E for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:24:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0233.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.233]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339CBA9 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:24:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEF1B18BB for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 12:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472474879.3425.30.camel@perches.com> From: Joe Perches To: Arnd Bergmann , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 05:47:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <5149968.BflLUdM3a8@wuerfel> References: <1472330452.26978.23.camel@perches.com> <20160828223759.GA12993@sasha-lappy> <20160829071515.wqlpjccq7a3vk7u6@piout.net> <5149968.BflLUdM3a8@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Greg KH , Sasha Levin , LKML Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] checkkpatch (in)sanity ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 11:01 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:  > I don't find checkpatch.pl overly useful for my own patches and rarely > run it. I mostly run checkpatch to test new checkpatch rules. I generally don't run it on my own patches, mostly out of possibly misplaced confidence in my own adherence to the nominal kernel style.  It sometimes leads to mild regret over things like whitespace defects. I get over it quickly. But I also think checkpatch's overall false positive reporting rate is relatively low.  Most all of what it does to report possible defects is nominally correct. If anyone has examples of bad reporting by checkpatch, please send it.