Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code

[Oleg Drokin]

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.