[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105161431550.4353@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] checkpatch.pl: Add check for task comm references
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> > Now that accessing current->comm needs to be protected,
> > @@ -2868,6 +2868,10 @@ sub process {
> > WARN("usage of NR_CPUS is often wrong - consider using
> > cpu_possible(), num_possible_cpus(), for_each_possible_cpu(), etc\n" .
> > $herecurr);
> > }
> > +# check for current->comm usage
> > + if ($line =~ /\b(?:current|task|tsk|t)\s*->\s*comm\b/) {
>
> Not a checkpatch.pl expert but as far as I'm concerned, that looks reasonable.
>
> I was sort of worried that t->comm could produce quite a few false positives
> but all its appearances in the kernel (seem to) refer to task.
>
It's guaranteed to generate false positives since perf events uses a field
of the same name to store a thread's comm, so I think the most important
thing is for the checkpatch output to specify that this _may_ be a
dereference of a thread's comm that needs get_task_comm() or %ptc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists