From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com (mail-wm1-f48.google.com [209.85.128.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 902EC219A67 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 05:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.48 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761542863; cv=none; b=Z50/ueRMhgoI/jetrIbwSB4SdOAuKQE6qGRZDnwMUj5PDh9xGpeUTQNpHobKh3GN7AIrsFVW2Dp9l9MGM3Vc0bIkuSE7u1mJNigtk2ZS9vK779KpM9mXp9PTVRoDU6grFjn8WiNcbDFLLMk5zegbKnk4+9F4tBbdTtdJvGabhOQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761542863; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qh79cjfHvrOLCxvcq4oI/lS6q5OmL9Fn6ODduBM4yG8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Vxopun2zHmbJKvyCa0ERto+h7FNPH0KbSXqeOJ0hT8vvdVaukd/qCRe4+T2ZoyZuPq/BcOs7w2LnN07h4GPJ1yot/Bx4ObVyJKN+ftpkmM4/LFr7ye1xkPVLP8qm3ZJ7em38iFsiOdCH3cpWP0uuP7prVRrWdKxGYHaP5dsJ1c4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=BgtQPv99; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.48 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="BgtQPv99" Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-47117f92e32so37379245e9.1 for ; Sun, 26 Oct 2025 22:27:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1761542859; x=1762147659; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sMQm/qKPeH1g9CIR6f10NMelAH+jy5bqtx5lzdYvSPI=; b=BgtQPv991ykr+JyI16mc3aazZKz2nKl6PYyuef43uLMaE9Lcyrf+UABekbyHVgC7f5 H0lwbIbmFVFp/s4rGvsSOqeFSftOIlbzlLmpQRZurbiYMW2nBMawSBIVf84QV0IW4FVI C/IPOxPeG5VGoL4KPUp6EHkINw2cOCGTB+vT0DG+fhh1oSVGrAVIq/cvqJwWeTvSc6o3 zySvJcNWYa1D7S6xnvfR7UZ1MWCr/2xB6UODCDHdBdLx5ynu+i0tpKuu9KZBhGuGv4hl uwdVR7BMMXuI3+cbDwTxS0ml/w42LF8meAZuIVu0wFmTTUajmOi9Lc98fN8G9glhuKBJ S8Dg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761542859; x=1762147659; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=sMQm/qKPeH1g9CIR6f10NMelAH+jy5bqtx5lzdYvSPI=; b=UHtp0HtA5QGIUwtDVKsxqVNYLaVSVMENtOprQ0rE5oEYf1BolDyxBDBYaNw8hHJpaZ nQ9JWa7QSDFE//oAOZ9vR2lezTJCl5NiCKJGsYkIUftKodPbIbXZtvCDOlhQ+r1YwPYQ Z0jtrmZTazGYrqSqaIH/uoOyTovhy+d92W95BJkmzNOshLJIZLgxb9A704QT+wYZuXS4 akqUIddEkGF24JzXfa1XSBndzglscWs5jeO/qmGAjkVV1I2GeRbZGH4wmNLcaEuTY/8d HME6OVNj4/Ge8Up9D19vlVhhtEKghugZjAkCNwD4Af1Gc/Ju6eEdtTje76YgD4pfUuN5 IVTA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUm6n/4uu22pTBYF870DsKthmfrN9qmWXrLcy2INlaUHwyd1BUaKXT9+W2I6kOLDhHtFnY7O5O71w==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzTixHSb9iSBkevMMSEW2U4tRR+SKZHkyJqMQjw98Zer6zEuKpI jC5/Tel0gQzq0M76y8O+8pUt/vPt1cF+QlS0PBy4iGsOJ/KJLQ32+BxwLpuIj3xv1jk= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctOyJQrlv15wbI4vo4bF2MlcchNogLPda7SviQl8lkkdzBYr5jg6vbEBn/5aGV 1gleCC9ffVwpdRkQ3tCGa4TglnDlJLdneiMME1qL5sEL+xlAbnr/p1+6TdtdDXycLDR0mvEPlbP WXbSkCVLQ7Ww9RROPzANqH+gtzraTuKczF7y8ucNviXUnGPNVk4/iBNHLM8SiI4Qay3ECPIMvdU +VCdVahcEMZakDGHXRJZ20KtG4pfE6iSRgEqt50BvHZHOtwOb3J4hhd8PE3REhLltv/0Z0uuXu9 qvUXEXNudZu0/c0+ViY8cKBgdYHEB+hI3pocvFnM7kBaTBkmz9CQhCDpw+WBPeOs4JXS3AeAGh/ UWvnPY+tm0mEM3IRK3qK3hpHkyFZU+lJrUoEDehfZKflE+JexdpEPW/elIUIAOh/l3rk4HbO3cQ xUYLAWLeCYV+lLDL3EgfmjLbmLi08= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGGMWIW5dTfslm/6ukE4iyqbFwa7B8xtQ/z5FIOwZZue/OCt475nBYcheMy53fO8smuBJDifQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2c0b:b0:427:84a:6dc9 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-427084a6ff0mr24497662f8f.59.1761542858724; Sun, 26 Oct 2025 22:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([196.207.164.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-429952b7b43sm12237102f8f.6.2025.10.26.22.27.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 26 Oct 2025 22:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 08:27:34 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: ally heev Cc: Dwaipayan Ray , Lukas Bulwahn , Joe Perches , Jonathan Corbet , Andy Whitcroft , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hunter , Shuah Khan , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linux-pm , dan.j.williams@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] add check for pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL Message-ID: References: <20251024-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v2-0-16c0900e8130@gmail.com> <20251024-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v2-2-16c0900e8130@gmail.com> <81e6af8eea5b0399d1685797d0ea6a6ebc273270.camel@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <81e6af8eea5b0399d1685797d0ea6a6ebc273270.camel@gmail.com> On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 11:53:56AM +0530, ally heev wrote: > On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 21:08 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:59:16PM +0530, Ally Heev wrote: > > > pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL > > > pose potential cleanup issues [1] when a function uses > > > interdependent variables with cleanup attributes > > > > > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/cleanup.html [1] > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68f7b830ec21a_10e910070@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch/ > > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams > > > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev > > > --- > > > > I don't think this patch is a good idea... There are two issues to > > consider 1) The absolute number over warnings. 500+ is too high. > > 2) The ratio of bugs to false positives and we don't have any data on > > that but I bet it's low. It needs to be at least 5%. For anything > > lower than that, you're better off just reviewing code at random > > instead of looking through warnings. > > > > regards, > > dan carpenter > > makes sense > > General question about the process for my understanding: > Is checkpatch run on full tree by CI or someone and results reported > regularly ? Newbies run it regularly. Otherwise it gets run on subsystem CIs and the zero-day bot runs it on new patches but it will report the old warnings as well under the "Old warnings" section. > My understanding was that we would run it only on patches > before submitting them Or we just run it on full tree before adding > new checks to understand if they are catching real issues Eventually someone will look at all the warnings. And probably it's going to be a newbie and so we need to be careful with warning where newbies might introduce bugs with their changes. regards, dan carpenter