Re: checkpatch potential false positive

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:33 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:19:14PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > Hi,

Hello.

> > When parsing drivers/staging/unisys/visorbus/visorchipset.c in Greg's
> > staging tree checkpatch emits
> > 
> > --------------
> > visorchipset.c
> > --------------
> > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > #1050: FILE: visorchipset.c:1050:
> > +	char *envp[] = { env_cmd, env_id, env_state, env_bus, env_dev,
> > 
> > WARNING: char * array declaration might be better as static const
> > #1140: FILE: visorchipset.c:1140:
> > +	char *envp[] = { env_selftest, NULL };
> > 
> > total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 1694 lines checked
> > 
> > I may be wrong but I think the code in question is clean and
> > correct. Since checkpatch is saying this _might_ be better ... perhaps
> > checkpatch could emit CHECK instead of WARNING for this?

CHECKs aren't enabled by default except for a few
directories and this warning is much more commonly
correct than incorrect.

checkpatch will always have both false positives and
false negatives.  It's stupid, people generally aren't.

Just ignore checkpatch bleats that aren't appropriate.