On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:44:08AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> diff -u -p ./lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c /tmp/nothing/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c
> --- ./lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c
> +++ /tmp/nothing/lib/lz4/lz4_decompress.c
> @@ -199,9 +199,6 @@ static FORCE_INLINE int LZ4_decompress_g
>
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 02:03:26PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 28/05/2024 12.37, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > I misplaced a closing ) in a patch using unlikely() and broke the
> > comparison, see [1] for context.
> >
> > The fix was:
> > - if (unlikely(abs(count + amount)) >= bat
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 02:51:33PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Actually, perhaps coccinelle would be a simpler place to implement a
> check like this.
I think Coccinelle would work on code that you can't compile as well.
Plus when you implement things in different ways, then you always find
d
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 12:37:23PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> I misplaced a closing ) in a patch using unlikely() and broke the
> comparison, see [1] for context.
>
> The fix was:
> - if (unlikely(abs(count + amount)) >= batch) {
> + if (unlikely(abs(count + amount)
On 28/05/2024 14.51, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Actually, perhaps coccinelle would be a simpler place to implement a
> check like this.
So I got curious and wrote a .cocci looking for this kind of pattern,
and apart from the stuff found via grep there were only two more
instances. The first is yet
On 28/05/2024 14.21, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 2:03 PM Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl:# likely/unlikely comparisons similar to
>> "(likely(foo) > 0)"
>>
>> So checkpatch should already have such a check, but running it on those
>> two files doesn't catch
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 2:03 PM Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> On 28/05/2024 12.37, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > I misplaced a closing ) in a patch using unlikely() and broke the
> > comparison, see [1] for context.
> >
> > The fix was:
> > - if (unlikely(abs(count + amount)) >= batch) {
>
On 28/05/2024 12.37, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> I misplaced a closing ) in a patch using unlikely() and broke the
> comparison, see [1] for context.
>
> The fix was:
> - if (unlikely(abs(count + amount)) >= batch) {
> + if (unlikely(abs(count + amount) >= batch)) {
>
> Nei
I misplaced a closing ) in a patch using unlikely() and broke the
comparison, see [1] for context.
The fix was:
- if (unlikely(abs(count + amount)) >= batch) {
+ if (unlikely(abs(count + amount) >= batch)) {
Neither kernel build with W=1 nor C=1 (smatch) report the pro
