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.
$ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;]" | wc -l
327
~10% of them seem to have in-line comments.
$ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;].*/\*" | wc -l
34
and just fyi, here's a top level directory breakdown:
$ git grep -E "\bspinlock_t\s*\*\s*\w+\s*[=;]" | cut -f1 -d"/" | uniq -c
1 Documentation
27 arch
1 block
119 drivers
24 fs
23 include
5 kernel
3 lib
67 mm
51 net
4 security
2 sound
