Re: [PATCH] brcm80211: brcmsmac: dma: Remove some unused functions

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:

> 2015-01-05 12:06 GMT+01:00 Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>:
> > On 01/05/15 11:49, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >>
> >> Rickard Strandqvist<rickard_strandqvist@spectrumdigital.se>  writes:
> >>
> >>> As I hope you can see I have made some changes regarding the
> >>> subject-line. Thought it was an advantage to be able to see which file
> >>> I actually removed something from. There seems to be a big focus on
> >>> getting right on subject-line right in recent weeks.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder why there is a script that takes a file name, and respond
> >>> with an appropriate subject line?
> >
> >
> > Is there a script for this? Anyway, I would say driver name is enough.
> > Enough about the subject line ;-) I would like to give some general remarks
> > as you seem to touch a lot of kernel code. First off, I think it is good to
> > remove unused stuff. However, I would like some more explanation on your
> > methodology apart from "partially found by using a static code analysis
> > program". So a cover-letter explaining that would have been nice (maybe
> > still is). Things like Kconfig option can affect whether function are used
> > or not so how did you cover that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Arend
> >
> >
> >> I don't think you can really automate this as some drivers do this a bit
> >> differently. You always need to manually check the commit log.
> >>
> >>> But ok, I change my script accordingly. Should I submit the patch again?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, please resubmit.
> >>
> >
> 
> Hi Arend
> 
> Yes, a script that had been excellent, I think!
> I have one as part of my git send-email script, until a week ago, it
> was enough that I removed the "drivers/" and changed all "/" to ": "
> I have now been expanded my sed pipe a lot (tell me if anyone is interested)
> But now I've seen everything from uppercase and [DIR], etc.
> So I can not understand how anyone should be able to get the right
> name without a good help.
> 
> Sure i like to share how I use cppcheck, but is very hesitant to write
> this with each patch mails I send though!
> 
> I run:
> cppcheck --force --quiet --enable=all .
> 
> Or a specific file instead of .
> 
> This will include, among other things get a lot of error message such,
> +4000 for the kernel.
> (style) The function 'xxx' is never used
> 
> For these I made a script that searched through all the files after
> the function name (cppcheck missed a few). And save the rest so I go
> through them and possibly send patches.

I think that the question was about what methodology is cppcheck using to 
find the given issue.  But probably cppcheck is a black box that does 
whatever it does, so the user doesn't know what the rationale is.  
However, I think you mentioned that cppcheck found only some of the 
issues.  You could thus describe what was the methodology for finding the 
other ones.

julia