From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed Trivial Warnings in file: Deleted Spaces
 prior to tabs, and added lines. modified: kernel/auditfilter.c
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:58:38 -0700
Message-ID: <1445435918.9220.9.camel@perches.com>
References: <1444528675-13184-1-git-send-email-scott@matheina.com>
	 <10476084.rIoW7K08e6@sifl> <5623DBF5.8020500@matheina.com>
	 <20151019161035.GB11501@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151019161035.GB11501@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: Scott Matheina <scott@matheina.com>, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, linux-audit@redhat.com, trivial@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 12:10 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote:
> > On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina wrote:
[]
> > >> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
[]
> > >> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > >>  {
> > >>  	struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu);
> > >>  	audit_free_rule(e);
> > >> +
> > >>  }
> > > Why?
> > 
> > I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the warning
> > went away after adding this line. No problem with the code. 
> 
> That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should be
> tween the declaration and the function call.

checkpatch message asks for a blank line after the
"struct audit_entry *e = ..." declaration.

> > >>  	while (*list != ~0U) {
> > >> +
> > >>  		unsigned n = *list++;
> > >>  		if (n >= AUDIT_BITMASK_SIZE * 32 - AUDIT_SYSCALL_CLASSES) {
> > >>  			kfree(p);
> > > Why?
> > 
> > This is the same as above. Just going through the checkpatch.pl
> > script, and looking for warnings to fix. 
> 
> Again, another manifestation of that bug?  That blank line should be
> after the declaration and before the if statement.
[]
> Well, I agree, you have to start somewhere...  Too bad you hit a bug in
> checkpatch.pl!

Here too, not a bug in checkpatch.

checkpatch output asks for a blank line after the
"unsigned n" declaration, not before.