On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 11:53:56AM +0530, ally heev wrote: > On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 21:08 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:59:16PM +0530, Ally Heev wrote: > > > pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL > > > pose potential cleanup issues [1] when a function uses > > > interdependent variables with cleanup attributes > > > > > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/cleanup.html [1] > > > Link: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > I don't think this patch is a good idea... There are two issues to > > consider 1) The absolute number over warnings. 500+ is too high. > > 2) The ratio of bugs to false positives and we don't have any data on > > that but I bet it's low. It needs to be at least 5%. For anything > > lower than that, you're better off just reviewing code at random > > instead of looking through warnings. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > makes sense > > General question about the process for my understanding: > Is checkpatch run on full tree by CI or someone and results reported > regularly ?
Newbies run it regularly. Otherwise it gets run on subsystem CIs and the zero-day bot runs it on new patches but it will report the old warnings as well under the "Old warnings" section. > My understanding was that we would run it only on patches > before submitting them Or we just run it on full tree before adding > new checks to understand if they are catching real issues Eventually someone will look at all the warnings. And probably it's going to be a newbie and so we need to be careful with warning where newbies might introduce bugs with their changes. regards, dan carpenter
