On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > The header mentions this check depends on personal taste. I agree.
> > Running coccicheck on patches before I apply them, this SmPL produced
> > enough false positives for me that I'd rat
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > The header mentions this check depends on personal taste. I agree.
> > Running coccicheck on patches before I apply them, this SmPL produced
> > enough false positives for me that I'd rat
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > The header mentions this check depends on personal taste. I agree.
> > > Running coccicheck on patches before I apply them, this SmPL p
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 06:43:08PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > The header mentions this check depends on personal taste. I agree.
> > Running coccicheck on patches before I apply them, this SmPL produced
> > enough false positives for me that I'd rat
The header mentions this check depends on personal taste. I agree.
Running coccicheck on patches before I apply them, this SmPL produced
enough false positives for me that I'd rather see it removed.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
---
scripts/coccinelle/misc/compare_const_fl.cocci | 171
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> The header mentions this check depends on personal taste. I agree.
> Running coccicheck on patches before I apply them, this SmPL produced
> enough false positives for me that I'd rather see it removed.
An improvement is coming up, that should be more ac
