> Do you mean that there is an error in the behavior of coccicheck or that > coccicheck finds an error in the source code?
An error in the source code. Here is an example of how the patch changes the behavior of 'make coccicheck' (my comments after the ###): Current behavior: $ make M=mymodule coccicheck mymodule/file1.c:97:4-14: ERROR: Assignment of bool to non-0/1 constant mymodule/file2.c:104:4-19: ERROR: Assignment of bool to non-0/1 constant mymodule/file2.c:577:1-15: code aligned with following code on line 583 mymodule/file3.c:439:5-10: Unneeded variable: "error". Return "0" on line 449 mymodule/file4.c:451:5-7: Unneeded variable: "rc". Return "0" on line 455 mymodule/file5.c:433:5-8: Unneeded variable: "ret". Return "0" on line 607 mymodule/file6.c:433:5-10: Unneeded variable: "error". Return "0" on line 440 mymodule/file7.c:774:2-3: Unneeded semicolon coccicheck failed ### <-- Check failed $ echo $? 0 ### <-- But error code signals that everthing is OK After this patch: $ make M=mymodule coccicheck ... coccicheck failed make: *** [Makefile:1636: coccicheck] Error 2 $ echo $? 2 ### <-- The patch changes error code Why does this matter? 1) Because it's clear from the source code that the original intention was to return an error code of checking command, not the "echo 'coccicheck failed'" command. 2) Automated testing systems (CI, for example) rely on the return code.