From: Lukas Bulwahn <email@example.com>
To: Ayush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] Regarding "Linux Kernel: Evaluate and Improve checkpatch.pl"
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 07:14:00 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2008310702520.8556@felia> (raw)
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020, Ayush wrote:
> August 27, 2020 10:59 AM, "Lukas Bulwahn" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, Ayush wrote:
> >> August 22, 2020 1:36 PM, "Lukas Bulwahn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, Ayush wrote:
> >> Hints to the first task:
> >> Can you create a list of all non-merge commits that were added in the
> >> version v5.8 of the kernel, i.e., all non-merge commits that are in v5.8
> >> and not already in v5.7?
> >> Can you share the script/command you executed and the resulting list on
> >> github?
> >> Can you run your script on all commits of this list above and record
> >> all checkpatch.pl reports, and store them in your github repository?
> >> Can you suggest ideas how to aggregate the findings and create a
> >> statistics? For example: Which type of error is reported most?
> >> Can you implement that idea?
> >> I also suggest to have a look at
> >> the options ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --list-types and
> >> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --show-types. The option --show-types changes
> >> the output of checkpatch.pl to list type identifiers, so it is easier
> >> to parse and aggregate the output.
> >> Please also share the script you create for that purpose on your
> >> github repository.
> >> The second task is to pick one warning that appears often and improve
> >> checkpatch.pl to handle that better and get it accepted by the kernel
> >> community.
> >> Hints to the second task follow when the first task is solved.
> >> If you fail on any of those tasks, you are out of the selection process.
> >> Lukas
> >> Sir,
> >> I have attempted the task 1 and pushed the same to GitHub.
> >> Please have a look and suggest improvements.
> >> https://github.com/eldraco19/evalute_improve_checkpatch_pl
> >> Please let me know if there are any issues with this.
> >> So far, so good.
> >> Here are the questions we want to answer:
> >> - So what are the 20 categories that occur most?
> >> You are getting close to that answer, but you are not there yet.
> >> Then look at the findings. For those 20 categories, are there specific
> >> findings that are multiple times false positives?
> >> So, the script complains about something, but it does not get that the
> >> patch author wrote something completely unrelated to the error message.
> >> Lukas
> >> Sir,
> >> I tried the given tasks and it can be found here,
> >> https://github.com/eldraco19/evalute_improve_checkpatch_pl/blob/master/STATS.md
> > The solution is implemented a bit complicated, but well, at least, it
> > works if I believe your report. (I only read the code, but did not run
> > it.)
> > The goal now is to find a class of false positives and improve
> > checkpatch.pl accordingly.
> > I suggest that you look at the specific DIFF_IN_COMMIT_MSG reported
> > errors?
> > Provide a short assessment for each DIFF_IN_COMMIT_MSG error in the
> > 10 commits.
> > It should tell:
> > - what lines in the commit message did checkpatch.pl complain about?
> > - what is the pattern in the commit message?
> > - does patch(1) really stumble over that pattern?
> > - how would this pattern need to be provided to patch(1) so that it
> > would stumble over it?
> > - if no, why not?
> > - can we change checkpatch.pl to not raise an error for such a
> > situation? So, only raise an error when the pattern would really make
> > patch stumble on it?
> > Depending on the evaluation, we might continue to improve checkpatch.pl
> > for reporting this error type, or we decide to look at GIT_COMMIT_ID
> > errors, where I can quickly spot some false positives.
> > Best regards,
> > Lukas
> I analysed the given error type and my analysis can be found here:
Evaluation looks sound. Although, I cannot really see the analysis of all
10 commits. You say the 10 commits fall into two classes, but how can
anyone else judge this from your report?
I also do not fully understand your conclusion; to me, it seems to
contradict itself. Fortunately, I think your analysis suggests that there
is not a clear improvement to checkpatch.pl, as far as I see.
So, I do not think that this is a good starting point for a change of
I suggest that you look at the error type GIT_COMMIT_ID. I have found some
cases that seem to be suitable for improvement of the checkpatch.pl
Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-31 5:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20200810125354.xeijyh3v5upatrez@salamander>
2020-08-17 9:43 ` [Linux-kernel-mentees] Regarding "Linux Kernel: Evaluate and Improve checkpatch.pl" Lukas Bulwahn
2020-08-21 16:18 ` Ayush
2020-08-22 8:06 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-08-24 10:06 ` Ayush
2020-08-27 5:28 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-08-30 18:51 ` Ayush
2020-08-31 5:14 ` Lukas Bulwahn [this message]
2020-09-06 9:59 ` Ayush
2020-09-07 7:38 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-09-07 14:27 ` Ayush
2020-09-07 16:43 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-09-09 9:14 ` Ayush
2020-09-09 9:52 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-09-09 16:01 ` Ayush
2020-09-10 6:04 ` Lukas Bulwahn
2020-08-26 13:51 ` Ayush
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).