[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <562D6B84.2090703@matheina.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:53:40 -0500
From: Scott Matheina <scott@...heina.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
linux-audit@...hat.com, trivial@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fixed Trivial Warnings in file: Deleted Spaces prior
to tabs, and added lines. modified: kernel/auditfilter.c
On 10/21/2015 09:15 PM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/10/21, Scott Matheina wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 10:33 AM, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>>> On 15/10/21, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 12:10 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
>>>>> On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c b/kernel/auditfilter.c
>>>> []
>>>>>>>> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu);
>>>>>>>> audit_free_rule(e);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>> I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the warning
>>>>>> went away after adding this line. No problem with the code.
>>>>> That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should be
>>>>> tween the declaration and the function call.
>>>> checkpatch message asks for a blank line after the
>>>> "struct audit_entry *e = ..." declaration.
>>> Well then maybe it is a bug in his interpretation of the output of
>>> checkpatch.pl? Scott, did you re-run checkpatch.pl after adding those
>>> spaces? Did it pass?
>> The error did go away.
> Joe, I confirm the error went away. Looks like a bug in checkpatch.pl
> to me. I tried a number of combinations of things and it didn't
> complain about several things it should have. I did try a few other
> things to make sure it was still finding problems like brace placement
> and leading spaces, but it looks like the blank line checking code isn't
> working. This is on 4.0, so maybe it has been fixed since then. Scott,
> what kernel version are you using?
I had just cloned Linus' repo, so v4.3rc6.
>
>>>>>>>> while (*list != ~0U) {
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> unsigned n = *list++;
>>>>>>>> if (n >= AUDIT_BITMASK_SIZE * 32 - AUDIT_SYSCALL_CLASSES) {
>>>>>>>> kfree(p);
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>> This is the same as above. Just going through the checkpatch.pl
>>>>>> script, and looking for warnings to fix.
>>>>> Again, another manifestation of that bug? That blank line should be
>>>>> after the declaration and before the if statement.
>>>> []
>>>>> Well, I agree, you have to start somewhere... Too bad you hit a bug in
>>>>> checkpatch.pl!
>>>> Here too, not a bug in checkpatch.
>>>>
>>>> checkpatch output asks for a blank line after the
>>>> "unsigned n" declaration, not before.
>>> - RGB
> - RGB
>
> --
> Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@...hat.com>
> Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
> Remote, Ottawa, Canada
> Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545
--
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