Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code
From: Oleg Drokin
Date: Mon Feb 15 2016 - 21:45:41 EST
On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.
I guess they are. And I understand why you would want a comment for the actual
spinlock, but pointexr - much less so.
Anyway, I have some more questions:
ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
#8720: FILE: drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/tracefile.h:189:
+#define cfs_tcd_for_each(tcd, i, j) \
+ for (i = 0; cfs_trace_data[i]; i++) \
+ for (j = 0, ((tcd) = &(*cfs_trace_data[i])[j].tcd); \
+ j < num_possible_cpus(); \
+ j++, (tcd) = &(*cfs_trace_data[i])[j].tcd)
This is a macros with complex value alright, but the whole idea of this one
is to not be enclosed. Any ideas about this one and similar?