On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> >> Hi Jan,
> >>
> >> my personal opinion is that we can’t handle them for files that needs to
> >> be kept
> >> in sync from an external source, because we can’t justify findings or tag
> >> false
> >> positives, if we are lucky we
Hi Stefano,
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> my personal opinion is that we can’t handle them for files that needs to be
>> kept
>> in sync from an external source, because we can’t justify findings or tag
>> false
>> positives, if we are lucky we might fix the non compliances but even in that
>> case
>>
On 17.02.2023 02:44, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 16 Feb 2023, at 08:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.02.2023 00:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > On 16 Feb 2023, at 08:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 16.02.2023 00:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> On 14/02/2023 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Patch 1's example has a "comment" field, which
> On 16 Feb 2023, at 08:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 16.02.2023 00:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2023 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Patch 1's example has a "comment" field, which no entry makes use of.
> Without that, how
On 16.02.2023 00:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 14/02/2023 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Patch 1's example has a "comment" field, which no entry makes use of.
Without that, how does it become clear _why_ a particular file is to
be
Hi Julien and all,
Summarizing here on the list what I had with Julien and Bertrand this
morning.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 14/02/2023 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Patch 1's example has a "comment" field, which no entry makes use of.
> > > Without
Hi Stefano,
On 14/02/2023 22:25, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
Patch 1's example has a "comment" field, which no entry makes use of.
Without that, how does it become clear _why_ a particular file is to
be excluded? The patch description here also doesn't provide any
justification ...
It would be
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.02.2023 09:56, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> > --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> > +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> > @@ -1,4 +1,209 @@
> > {
> > "version": "1.0",
> > -"content": []
> > +"content": [
> > +{
> > +
On 14.02.2023 09:56, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> --- a/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> +++ b/docs/misra/exclude-list.json
> @@ -1,4 +1,209 @@
> {
> "version": "1.0",
> -"content": []
> +"content": [
> +{
> +"rel_path": "arch/arm/arm64/cpufeature.c"
> +},
> +
Add entries to the exclude-list.json for those files that need to be
excluded from the analysis scan.
Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu
Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel
---
This list is originated from Michal's work here:
11 matches
Mail list logo