Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1334949
| From | Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code |
| Date | 2016-02-16 03:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r2DyO-1ku-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r2C9I-dV-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2C9I-dV-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <r2D5L-Rv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 20:57 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 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.
I don't have an opinion here.
spinlock_t pointers are relatively rare.
$ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;]" | wc -l
327
~10% of them seem to have in-line comments.
$ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;].*/\*" | wc -l
34
and just fyi, here's a top level directory breakdown:
$ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;]" | cut -f1 -d"/" | uniq -c
1 Documentation
27 arch
1 block
119 drivers
24 fs
23 include
5 kernel
3 lib
67 mm
51 net
4 security
2 sound
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