Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code | From | Oleg Drokin <> | Date | Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:57:13 -0500 |
| |
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.
| |