From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752613AbcBPC1P (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:27:15 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0038.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.38]:35492 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752198AbcBPC1O (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:27:14 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:152:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2893:2894:2897:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3872:3874:4321:5007:6261:7903:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11658:11783:11914:12043:12438:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:13894:14659:21080:30012:30054:30070:30090:30091,0,RBL:error,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:error,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2000,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: wool45_5b85b31efb40d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2504 Message-ID: <1455589627.4046.35.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code From: Joe Perches To: Oleg Drokin Cc: Andy Whitcroft , LKML , Andrew Morton Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:27:07 -0800 In-Reply-To: <073E66B1-D39F-4D03-BDC7-68B18172BA5D@linuxhacker.ru> References: <1E5E2198-2E5C-4B6F-AAA5-C28E0A776714@linuxhacker.ru> <1455584189.4046.28.camel@perches.com> <073E66B1-D39F-4D03-BDC7-68B18172BA5D@linuxhacker.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 20:57 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote: > 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. I don't have an opinion here. spinlock_t pointers are relatively rare. $ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;]" | wc -l 327 ~10% of them seem to have in-line comments. $ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;].*/\*" | wc -l 34 and just fyi, here's a top level directory breakdown: $ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;]" | cut -f1 -d"/" | uniq -c       1 Documentation      27 arch       1 block     119 drivers      24 fs      23 include       5 kernel       3 lib      67 mm      51 net       4 security       2 sound