[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70d5493d-1c33-35ed-cbed-18f4e0bad79a@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 15:56:21 +0000
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
alloc_workqueue call
On 19/03/2021 15:54, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:16:26PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>>
>
> Thanks for catching this Colin. I'm fairly new to kernel development.
> Is there some tool I could have run locally to catch this?
>
I'm using Coverity to find these issues. There is a free version [1],
but the one I use is licensed and has the scan level turned up quite
high to catch more issues than the free service.
Refs: [1] https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan
Colin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists