linux-kernel - false checkpatch finding?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <32E1700B9017364D9B60AED9960492BC2D0F608F@fmsmsx120.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:04:11 +0000
From:   "Marciniszyn, Mike" <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>
To:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:     "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: false checkpatch finding?

<4.8 tree>/scripts/checkpatch.pl -F foo.h
WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations
#3: FILE: foo.h:3:
+       unsigned long f1;
+       volatile __le64 f2.

WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
#3: FILE: foo.h:3:
+       volatile __le64 f2.

total: 0 errors, 2 warnings, 4 lines checked

NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
      mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.

foo.h has style problems, please review.

NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
      them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

Adding a gratuitous blank line after f1 silences the bogus warning.

The volatile warning is ok because this is a hardware written field.

Snip the test file from below.

Mike

<snip foo.h>
struct foo {
	unsigned long f1;
	volatile __le64 f2.
};
</snip foo.h>