lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code
From
Date

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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-16 03:21    [W:0.056 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site