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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
