On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 14:21 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > It doesn't matter match either way to me.
> > Why does this stop you fixing an apparently wrong checkpatch rule,
> > crude as parts of it are (ie, uppercase identifier must be a
> > constant)?
>
> It doesn't. It just doesn't matter much
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 23:14 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:56 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > It doesn't matter match either way to me.
> Why does this stop you fixing an apparently wrong checkpatch rule,
> crude as parts of it are (ie, uppercase identifier must be a constant)?
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:56 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> It doesn't matter match either way to me.
>
> The case for the unnecessary multiply with <= gcc 4.8 was
> removed with:
>
> commit 91c6a05f72a996bee5133e76374ab3ad7d3b9b72
> Author: Alexey Dobriyan
> Date: Tue Jul 26 15:22:08 2016 -0700
>
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 22:39 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:24 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 21:43 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > Why doesn't that regex match on "ORIGIN_HASH_SIZE"?
> > It does match.
> If that regex does match, it being part of a negative
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:24 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 21:43 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Why doesn't that regex match on "ORIGIN_HASH_SIZE"?
>
> It does match.
If that regex does match, it being part of a negative test, the
specific checkpatch rule should be silent, should
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 21:43 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 08:01 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > $Constant there is any number and the match regex is
> > any upper case variable.
> Why doesn't that regex match on "ORIGIN_HASH_SIZE"?
It does match.
Did you see my earlier email?
$
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 08:01 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> $Constant there is any number and the match regex is
> any upper case variable.
Why doesn't that regex match on "ORIGIN_HASH_SIZE"?
Paul Bolle
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:45 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:12 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Or did I misread that test?
> I finally did some digging: commit e367455a9f25 ("checkpatch: emit
> fewer kmalloc_array/kcalloc conversion warnings") shows I didn't.
You still misread it
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 13:12 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Or did I misread that test?
I finally did some digging: commit e367455a9f25 ("checkpatch: emit
fewer kmalloc_array/kcalloc conversion warnings") shows I didn't.
Paul Bolle
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 03:02 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> What's the false positive?
>
> I get:
>
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/md/dm-snap.c --show-types
> --types=alloc_with_multiply
> WARNING:ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY: Prefer kmalloc_array over kmalloc with multiply
> #329: FILE: drivers/md/d
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 11:54 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Andy, Joe,
>
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 11:07 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > * Multiplications for the size determination of memory allocations
> > indicated that array data structures should be processed.
> > Thus use the corresponding
Andy, Joe,
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 11:07 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> * Multiplications for the size determination of memory allocations
> indicated that array data structures should be processed.
> Thus use the corresponding function "kmalloc_array".
>
> This issue was detected by using
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:20:08 +0200
* Multiplications for the size determination of memory allocations
indicated that array data structures should be processed.
Thus use the corresponding function "kmalloc_array".
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle softw
13 matches
Mail list logo