Re: [PATCH] add a trivial patch style checker II

[Andy Whitcroft]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/