Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:07:53PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Yeah, that is a very sensible idea.
> > >
> > > > Possible further checks that might make sense:
> > > > - panic() anywhere in drivers/*
> > > > - externs in .c files without asmlinkage
> > > > - general checking that everything in a fully visible {} block is the
> right
> > > > indentation
> > > >
> >
> > Here are some more warnings I would like to see:
> >
> > - Warning for any spinlock/mutex definition that doesn't have a comment
> > nearby (all locks ought to be documented)
>
> Also barriers. (Probably even moreso).
Both of these seem a pretty good idea. Should be in version 0.03 which
I'll try and get to Andrew over the weekend. Example reports from files
in 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 below.
-apw
spinlock_t definition without comment
FILE: lib/statistic.c:243:
+ spinlock_t lock;
struct mutex definition without comment
FILE: include/linux/kernelcapi.h:67:
+ struct mutex recv_mtx;
memory barrier without comment
FILE: fs/ext2/balloc.c:1250:
+ smp_rmb();
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
