Re: [KJ] updated kj-devel.pl

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

Vicente Feito wrote:
> According to the kj-devel.pl modified script I've sent (which I guess not much 
> people must be using).
> I've removed the strlen and sprintf warning cause it's ok to use them, 
> amazingly the DO and DONT's document in kerneljanitors.org says that it's not 
> correct, but checking the linux/Documentation/cli_sti_removal.txt file I've 
> found that it's ok to use it, I've tried contacting the author of the 
> document with no luck yet.
> Thank you.
> PS: I'm not sending patches because this is not the official devel.pl that 
> it's on the janitors page. I would like to hear if someone is using it, or 
> everybody is using the other tools.

I find the <module>: "You must use the init mechanism" checking
a little too strong.  Not everything in linux/*.c has to be built
as a module, so the tool needs to allow for that.
And not everything is a device driver, but we should be able to
use the tool anyway, to test for all applicable problems... IMO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This message could be a little better:
Using foo[] it's recommended against *foo

How about:
Using foo[] is recommended over *foo: saves memory references & code.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

spinlock misuse detection is often not straightforward.
E.g., in kernel/acct.c (2.6.11-rc3), I'm getting:
Lock closed on line 115
Lock closed on line 162
Obtained spinlock on line 198, but never unlocked.
acct.c:198:             spin_lock(&acct_globals.lock);


Lock closed on line 247
Lock closed on line 263
Lock closed on line 521
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ these line numbers appear to be off by 1 line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More later.

-- 
~Randy
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors