Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1334916

Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code

Show all headers | View raw

On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> [etc...]
> 
> Yeah, that's a defect of some type.

Also while I have your attention, here's another one:

struct cfs_percpt_lock *
cfs_percpt_lock_alloc(struct cfs_cpt_table *cptab)
{
        struct cfs_percpt_lock  *pcl;
        spinlock_t              *lock;
        int                     i;
…
        cfs_percpt_for_each(lock, i, pcl->pcl_locks)
                spin_lock_init(lock);

The declaration of the spinlock pointer produces:
CHECK: spinlock_t definition without comment

Should spinlock pointers really be included in the check, it's obvious that
they themselves are not really protecting anything, esp. considering it's a
local function variable here.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-02-16 02:00 +0100
  Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> - 2016-02-16 03:00 +0100
    Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-02-16 03:30 +0100
      Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> - 2016-02-16 03:50 +0100
        Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-02-16 04:10 +0100
          Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> - 2016-02-16 04:20 +0100

csiph-web