Re: [PATCH] pci/switchtec: fix stream_open.cocci warnings (fwd)

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Kirill will explain about this issue.
> >
> > julia
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 11:22:51 +0800
> > From: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: kbuild@xxxxxx
> > Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [PATCH] pci/switchtec: fix stream_open.cocci warnings
> >
> > CC: kbuild-all@xxxxxx
> > TO: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > From: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c:395:1-17: ERROR: switchtec_fops: .read() can deadlock .write(); change nonseekable_open -> stream_open to fix.
> >
> > Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
> >
> > Fixes: 8a29a3bae2a2 ("pci/switchtec: Don't use completion's wait queue")
> > Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Based on Kirill's subsequent email saying this is already queued to
> the merge window, I assume I need to do nothing here.
>
> I think a signed-off-by from a robot, i.e., not from a real person, is
> meaningless, and I don't think I would personally accept it.  It's
> certainly OK to indicate that a patch was auto-generated, but I think
> a real person still needs to take responsibility for it.
>
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst says it must contain a
> real name (no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions), and I don't
> think a robot fits in the spirit of that.
>
> I see that
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git/commit/?id=8a29a3bae2a2
> (mentioned below) does have a good signed-off-by from Sebastian, but
> that's not *this* patch, so I don't know what's what.

Normally, for these robot generated patches, when I approve them, I put my
own sign off, but under the robot one, since the robot has put a From
line.  In this case, I handed the problem off to Kirill, so I didn't do
that.  I agree that it would be good for Kirill to sign off on it.

julia



>
> Bjorn
>
> > ---
> >
> > tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git linux-5.0.y-rt-rebase
> > head:   794c294ae4483c240429c25a0d18e272e92c94de
> > commit: 8a29a3bae2a2dfb0116cd8791d9700515d6e765e [154/311] pci/switchtec: Don't use completion's wait queue
> > :::::: branch date: 7 hours ago
> > :::::: commit date: 7 hours ago
> >
> > Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks!
> >
> >  switchtec.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c
> > @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ static int switchtec_dev_open(struct ino
> >  		return PTR_ERR(stuser);
> >
> >  	filp->private_data = stuser;
> > -	nonseekable_open(inode, filp);
> > +	stream_open(inode, filp);
> >
> >  	dev_dbg(&stdev->dev, "%s: %p\n", __func__, stuser);
> >
>