Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1334916
| Path | csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod |
|---|---|
| From | Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> |
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code |
| Date | Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r2D5L-Rv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r2C9I-dV-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2C9I-dV-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| X-Original-To | Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=windows-1252 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8BIT |
| X-Mailer | Apple Mail (2.1283) |
| Sender | robomod@news.nic.it |
| List-ID | <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org> |
| X-Mailing-List | linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org |
| Approved | robomod@news.nic.it |
| Lines | 24 |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
| X-Original-Cc | Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> |
| X-Original-Date | Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:57:13 -0500 |
| X-Original-Message-ID | <073E66B1-D39F-4D03-BDC7-68B18172BA5D@linuxhacker.ru> |
| X-Original-References | <1E5E2198-2E5C-4B6F-AAA5-C28E0A776714@linuxhacker.ru> <1455584189.4046.28.camel@perches.com> |
| X-Original-Sender | linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org |
| Xref | csiph.com linux.kernel:1334916 |
Show key headers only | 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
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