[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1353178846.15959.2.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:00:46 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Constantine Shulyupin <const@...eLinux.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] checkpatch: debugfs_remove() can take NULL
On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 20:54 +0200, Constantine Shulyupin wrote:
> From: Constantine Shulyupin <const@...eLinux.com>
Hi Constantine.
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
[]
> +# check for needless debugfs_remove() and debugfs_remove_recursive*() checks
> + if ($line =~ /\b(debugfs_remove(?:_recursive)?)$expr/) {
> + WARN("NEEDLESS_DEBUGFS_REMOVE",
> + "$1(NULL) is safe this check is probably not required\n" . $hereprev);
> + }
OK,
> +# check for needless debugfs_remove_recursive() and debugfs_remove_recursive*() checks
> + if ($line =~ /\b(debugfs_remove_recursive(?:_recursive)?)$expr/) {
> + WARN("NEEDLESS_DEBUGFS_REMOVE_RECURSIVE",
> + "$1(NULL) is safe this check is probably not required\n" . $hereprev);
> + }
You don't need thus second block.
The first check finds both
debugfs_remove(foo)
and
debugfs_remove_recursive(bar)
The second one is redundant
--
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