Re: checkpatch falsepositives in Lustre code

[Oleg Drokin]

On Feb 15, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:

> 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.

I guess they are. And I understand why you would want a comment for the actual
spinlock, but pointexr - much less so.

Anyway, I have some more questions:

ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
#8720: FILE: drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/tracefile.h:189:
+#define cfs_tcd_for_each(tcd, i, j)                                   \
+       for (i = 0; cfs_trace_data[i]; i++)                             \
+               for (j = 0, ((tcd) = &(*cfs_trace_data[i])[j].tcd);     \
+                    j < num_possible_cpus();                            \
+                    j++, (tcd) = &(*cfs_trace_data[i])[j].tcd)

This is a macros with complex value alright, but the whole idea of this one
is to not be enclosed. Any ideas about this one and similar?