Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] scripts: checkpatch.pl: remove obsolete in_atomic rule | From | "Yang Shi" <> | Date | Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:08:21 +0800 |
| |
On 11/6/17 5:52 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sat 04-11-17 03:08:06, Yang Shi wrote: >> checkpatch.pl still reports the below in_atomic warning: >> >> WARNING: use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code >> + if (in_atomic()) >> >> But, in_atomic() has been used outside kernel dir for a long time, and >> even drivers. So, remove the obsolete rule even though they can be >> ignored. > > NAK. in_atomic is tricky and shouldn't be used. I would bet most of the > usage is simply broken. See more http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171106100558.GD3165@worktop.lehotels.local
Thanks for following up. Yes, it sounds so. However, there is not a reliable and effective approach to check atomic context for both PREEMPT and !PREEMPT.
Yang
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.s@alibaba-inc.com> >> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> --- >> Not sure if removing the obsolete rule is preferred by checkpatch.pl, anyway >> it sounds not make sense to keep invalid rule. >> >> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 11 ----------- >> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> index 8b80bac..e8cf94f 100755 >> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl >> @@ -6231,17 +6231,6 @@ sub process { >> "Using $1 should generally have parentheses around the comparison\n" . $herecurr); >> } >> >> -# whine mightly about in_atomic >> - if ($line =~ /\bin_atomic\s*\(/) { >> - if ($realfile =~ m@^drivers/@) { >> - ERROR("IN_ATOMIC", >> - "do not use in_atomic in drivers\n" . $herecurr); >> - } elsif ($realfile !~ m@^kernel/@) { >> - WARN("IN_ATOMIC", >> - "use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code\n" . $herecurr); >> - } >> - } >> - >> # whine about ACCESS_ONCE >> if ($^V && $^V ge 5.10.0 && >> $line =~ /\bACCESS_ONCE\s*$balanced_parens\s*(=(?!=))?\s*($FuncArg)?/) { >> -- >> 1.8.3.1 >
| |