Re: [PATCH v4] kernel/trace: fixed static warnings

[Abhijith Sriram]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 10:23 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Subject should be:
>
>  tracing: Fixed static checker warnings
>
> On Mon,  6 Apr 2026 09:28:34 +0200
> abhijithsriram95@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > From: Abhijith Sriram <abhijithsriram95@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The change in the function argument description
> > was due to the static code checker script reading
> > the word filter back to back
> >
>
> The below changes should be beneath the '---'
>
> > Changes in v2:
>
> The last change should be first. In fact, I only care about the last change
> as the previous versions should have the description of what changed.
>
> > - corrected *m = file->private_data to m = file->private_data
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - reverted the changes for struct seq_file *m and
> >   added a new empty line instead
> >
> > Changes in v4:
>
> That said, this should really be:
>
>  Changes since v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260406060046.223496-2-abhijithsriram95@xxxxxxxxx/
>
>
> > - added a new empty line before char *buf ...
> >   previously this line was relocated to avoid the
> >   static check warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Abhijith Sriram <abhijithsriram95@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c b/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c
> > index 655db2e82513..664283bcd9ea 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c
> > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ event_triggers_post_call(struct trace_event_file *file,
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(event_triggers_post_call);
> >
> > -#define SHOW_AVAILABLE_TRIGGERS      (void *)(1UL)
> > +#define SHOW_AVAILABLE_TRIGGERS      ((void *)(1UL))
> >
> >  static void *trigger_next(struct seq_file *m, void *t, loff_t *pos)
> >  {
> > @@ -352,6 +352,7 @@ static int event_trigger_regex_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >               ret = seq_open(file, &event_triggers_seq_ops);
> >               if (!ret) {
> >                       struct seq_file *m = file->private_data;
> > +
>
> This blank line makes the code look worse. Yes, we usually want a blank
> line between the variable declarations and the code, but when it comes to
> code blocks (not functions) that rule is not as strict.
>
> Get rid of this newline.
>
>
> >                       m->private = file;
> >               }
> >       }
> > @@ -390,6 +391,7 @@ static ssize_t event_trigger_regex_write(struct file *file,
> >  {
> >       struct trace_event_file *event_file;
> >       ssize_t ret;
> > +
> >       char *buf __free(kfree) = NULL;
>
> The char *buf is a declaration. It no new line is expected before it.
>
> >
> >       if (!cnt)
> > @@ -633,6 +635,7 @@ clear_event_triggers(struct trace_array *tr)
> >
> >       list_for_each_entry(file, &tr->events, list) {
> >               struct event_trigger_data *data, *n;
> > +
>
> Again, if it's in a code block, don't change it.
>
> -- Steve
>
> >               list_for_each_entry_safe(data, n, &file->triggers, list) {
> >                       trace_event_trigger_enable_disable(file, 0);
> >                       list_del_rcu(&data->list);
> > @@ -785,7 +788,7 @@ static void unregister_trigger(char *glob,
> >   *   cmd               - the trigger command name
> >   *   glob              - the trigger command name optionally prefaced with '!'
> >   *   param_and_filter  - text following cmd and ':'
> > - *   param             - text following cmd and ':' and stripped of filter
> > + *   param             - text following cmd and ':' and filter removed
> >   *   filter            - the optional filter text following (and including) 'if'
> >   *
> >   * To illustrate the use of these components, here are some concrete
>

Shall we totally scrap these changes? Apart from introducing new lines
the only other
changes are to add some brackets and reframe the comments. We are not adding
a lot of value from this change. I will take this as a positive first
time experience
into linux kernel dev and focus on other meaningful changes.

-- 
Regards
Abhijith Sriram