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 ESMTP id 2C76F7B9 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 06:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com (mail-ee0-f46.google.com [74.125.83.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0760020117 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 06:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f46.google.com with SMTP id t10so4219686eei.5 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 23:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53706EAB.7010601@monstr.eu> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 08:48:11 +0200 From: Michal Simek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wolfram Sang , Dave Jones References: <20140509170709.GA9747@redhat.com> <20140511111034.GA6400@katana> In-Reply-To: <20140511111034.GA6400@katana> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9QMwuH4nCJVPjdGGeBb6SJlW33Is8uGvJ" Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] coverity, static checking etc. Reply-To: monstr@monstr.eu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --9QMwuH4nCJVPjdGGeBb6SJlW33Is8uGvJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/11/2014 01:10 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >=20 >> Last year I had been doing the coverity scans on an almost daily basis= >> for 2-3 months. Now that we're a year in, I'd like to share some >> results, and show some of the more common trends and bug patterns that= >> seem to pop up. >> >> [ spoiler: For the most part, it's all pretty positive, but we still s= uck ] >> >> It would also be good to have some more discussion about other tools >> we could be making more use of. (Nomination: Dan Carpenter for smatch= ). >=20 > I'm definately interested. I am also interested in this because using these tools is just one way how to clean the source code and it must be automated. > In my workflow, I use sparse/smatch/coccicheck/cppcheck before applying= > my own work, or patches to the i2c branches. (Oh, and rats and flawfind= er, > too, but so far, they didn't point to something worthwhile.) >=20 > I am interested in workflows and experiences from other people, how > usage of static analyzers could be spread (gcc inclusion sounds great),= > how to make them more robust, etc... And by doing that, get a better > feeling when an issue left the scope of static code checking and needs > some proper handling. I expect that this is already the part of aiaiai. The part of this discus= sion should be also kernel-doc format checking because a lot of patches are trying to use kernel-doc format but it is just broken - even checker is in the kernel. Everybody is using own testing - isn't it better to just add all these checking the part of the linux kernel that everybody can enable it and test it? I hope that everybody is running checkpatch before patch is sent. Why not just tell them run this in-kernel tool with all that checking enabled before you send the patch? Thanks, Michal --=20 Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform --9QMwuH4nCJVPjdGGeBb6SJlW33Is8uGvJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlNwbrUACgkQykllyylKDCGqNwCeI4Xp2iwHu7+oaK4gnLYCCEvg YkIAn0B4a7OJyVyfMha3NCJ+Z3CVp6IA =InHY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9QMwuH4nCJVPjdGGeBb6SJlW33Is8uGvJ--