On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 10:23 PM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Subject should be: > > tracing: Fixed static checker warnings > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:28:34 +0200 > [email protected] wrote: > > > From: Abhijith Sriram <[email protected]> > > > > The change in the function argument description > > was due to the static code checker script reading > > the word filter back to back > > > > The below changes should be beneath the '---' > > > Changes in v2: > > The last change should be first. In fact, I only care about the last change > as the previous versions should have the description of what changed. > > > - corrected *m = file->private_data to m = file->private_data > > > > Changes in v3: > > - reverted the changes for struct seq_file *m and > > added a new empty line instead > > > > Changes in v4: > > That said, this should really be: > > Changes since v3: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > - added a new empty line before char *buf ... > > previously this line was relocated to avoid the > > static check warning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhijith Sriram <[email protected]> > > --- > > kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c > > b/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c > > index 655db2e82513..664283bcd9ea 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ event_triggers_post_call(struct trace_event_file *file, > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(event_triggers_post_call); > > > > -#define SHOW_AVAILABLE_TRIGGERS (void *)(1UL) > > +#define SHOW_AVAILABLE_TRIGGERS ((void *)(1UL)) > > > > static void *trigger_next(struct seq_file *m, void *t, loff_t *pos) > > { > > @@ -352,6 +352,7 @@ static int event_trigger_regex_open(struct inode > > *inode, struct file *file) > > ret = seq_open(file, &event_triggers_seq_ops); > > if (!ret) { > > struct seq_file *m = file->private_data; > > + > > This blank line makes the code look worse. Yes, we usually want a blank > line between the variable declarations and the code, but when it comes to > code blocks (not functions) that rule is not as strict. > > Get rid of this newline. > > > > m->private = file; > > } > > } > > @@ -390,6 +391,7 @@ static ssize_t event_trigger_regex_write(struct file > > *file, > > { > > struct trace_event_file *event_file; > > ssize_t ret; > > + > > char *buf __free(kfree) = NULL; > > The char *buf is a declaration. It no new line is expected before it. > > > > > if (!cnt) > > @@ -633,6 +635,7 @@ clear_event_triggers(struct trace_array *tr) > > > > list_for_each_entry(file, &tr->events, list) { > > struct event_trigger_data *data, *n; > > + > > Again, if it's in a code block, don't change it. > > -- Steve > > > list_for_each_entry_safe(data, n, &file->triggers, list) { > > trace_event_trigger_enable_disable(file, 0); > > list_del_rcu(&data->list); > > @@ -785,7 +788,7 @@ static void unregister_trigger(char *glob, > > * cmd - the trigger command name > > * glob - the trigger command name optionally prefaced with > > '!' > > * param_and_filter - text following cmd and ':' > > - * param - text following cmd and ':' and stripped of filter > > + * param - text following cmd and ':' and filter removed > > * filter - the optional filter text following (and > > including) 'if' > > * > > * To illustrate the use of these components, here are some concrete >
Shall we totally scrap these changes? Apart from introducing new lines the only other changes are to add some brackets and reframe the comments. We are not adding a lot of value from this change. I will take this as a positive first time experience into linux kernel dev and focus on other meaningful changes. -- Regards Abhijith Sriram
