On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 21:45 -0500, Oleg Drokin wrote: > On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > 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. > > I guess they are. And I understand why you would want a comment for the actual > spinlock, but pointexr - much less so. > > Anyway, I have some more questions: > > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses > #8720: FILE: drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/tracefile.h:189: > +#define cfs_tcd_for_each(tcd, i, j) \ > + for (i = 0; cfs_trace_data[i]; i++) \ > + for (j = 0, ((tcd) = &(*cfs_trace_data[i])[j].tcd); \ > + j < num_possible_cpus(); \ > + j++, (tcd) = &(*cfs_trace_data[i])[j].tcd) > > This is a macros with complex value alright, but the whole idea of this one > is to not be enclosed. Any ideas about this one and similar?
checkpatch is brainless script and a not a real parser. Ignoring its stupid and incorrect messages is a good idea. fyi: There are many of these messages that exist like below. I can't think of a reasonable way to automatically identify and not show the defective error messages for these. Andy? --- ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses #86: FILE: include/linux/dmar.h:86: +#define for_each_active_drhd_unit(drhd) \ + list_for_each_entry_rcu(drhd, &dmar_drhd_units, list) \ + if (drhd->ignored) {} else ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses #90: FILE: include/linux/dmar.h:90: +#define for_each_active_iommu(i, drhd) \ + list_for_each_entry_rcu(drhd, &dmar_drhd_units, list) \ + if (i=drhd->iommu, drhd->ignored) {} else ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses #94: FILE: include/linux/dmar.h:94: +#define for_each_iommu(i, drhd) \ + list_for_each_entry_rcu(drhd, &dmar_drhd_units, list) \ + if (i=drhd->iommu, 0) {} else ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses #110: FILE: include/linux/dmar.h:110: +#define for_each_active_dev_scope(a, c, p, d) \ + for_each_dev_scope((a), (c), (p), (d)) if (!(d)) { continue; } else total: 4 errors, 0 warnings, 285 lines checked