From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC2AC433F5 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 07:32:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353234AbiEFHfv (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2022 03:35:51 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53446 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231643AbiEFHfk (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 May 2022 03:35:40 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D606F5D1B1; Fri, 6 May 2022 00:31:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1651822317; x=1683358317; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=SkwnacsNYIuKuqUXcnje2/FShCNjGYncVyvTKO9Qoz4=; b=DxQulxvfjkQmf2kZEqMPCMGYgcLKjLr0cqiBFUzSbcH9cG5hbl5I3UOV tf50Fw9QgJueTPphn3GyaovCGjlpNIISHI1TYmS+BDcO5vyizbEW4vdw3 p56SWaH8i5Cya7VYbhEvUzTb8U/0JeMufZnTwQhajM8ivQnLRKB7evzGh /ioC0nm4Mz6eeJ1zhOSvOOxxJQC/Gk2Oclm/KzRVYUYsZLu48KdrXYBpu bNpzoI3AZU7ofs9wAdfhZRstnYXS/6KHFAYQf+gjNPkjoAgqMQdIAqfJA FpvDYZukra/FYDePJZsheFaIcdKz023yBnCCQj9YA6xfNpX5iQcsfwgOw Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10338"; a="268527422" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,203,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="268527422" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 May 2022 00:31:57 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,203,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="563686566" Received: from rli9-dbox.sh.intel.com (HELO rli9-dbox) ([10.239.159.142]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 May 2022 00:31:54 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 15:30:05 +0800 From: Philip Li To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Dave Hansen , Arnd Bergmann , kernel test robot , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, Linux Memory Management List , Tony Lindgren , Russell King , linux-omap , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dove: fix returnvar.cocci warnings Message-ID: References: <202205031017.4TwMan3l-lkp@intel.com> <8704209d-d487-a297-b05a-5db99f5f808c@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 09:24:26AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 03:12, Philip Li wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 09:31:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On 5/3/22 00:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 4:45 AM kernel test robot wrote: > > > >> From: kernel test robot > > > >> > > > >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/dma.c:82:10-16: Unneeded variable: "errata". Return "0" on line 161 > > > >> > > > >> Remove unneeded variable used to store return value. > > > >> > > > >> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/returnvar.cocci > > > >> > > > >> Reported-by: kernel test robot > > > >> Signed-off-by: kernel test robot > > > > I checked the patch, and unfortunately it is wrong, the current code > > > > needs to stay. > > > > The problem is the SET_DMA_ERRATA() macro that accesses the > > > > local 'errata' variable. > > > > > > 0day folks, do we have humans looking over these before they're going > > > out to the list? If not, can we add some? If so, can the humans get a > > > little more discerning? ;) > > > > Sorry all for the bad patch. So far, we pick up several cocci warnings that > > we have confidence based on early result analysis and feedback, for these > > warnings, 0day sends out patch automatically. > > > > Could you please add a special header or something to such emails so I > can filter them out? I am strongly opposed to such automatic spambot > patch generation, as it wastes valuable reviewer bandwidth to save the > bot operator some time, but it think it should be the other way > around. Sorry for the trouble, we will stop sending the patch automatically and only send out patch after human confirmed/reviewed. > > We expect contributors to carefully prepare their patch submissions > before sending them to the list, and automatically generated patches > simply don't mesh with that. The fact that you use a bot does not mean > you can ignore these rules. Got it, we will improve this to follow the right way to send out patches. Thanks