linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] binder: reframe comment to avoid warning

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YZ4JgD0Xp8a+ch4j@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Nov 2021 10:44:32 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Ajith P V <ajithpv.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     arve@...roid.com, tkjos@...roid.com, maco@...roid.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, christian@...uner.io, hridya@...gle.com,
        surenb@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder: reframe comment to avoid warning

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 03:00:02PM +0530, Ajith P V wrote:
> binder.c file comment produce warning with checkpatch as below:
> WARNING: waitqueue_active without comment
> 
> Placing the waitqueue_active comment just above waitqueue_active() avoid
> this warning.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ajith P V <ajithpv.linux@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/android/binder.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
> index 49fb74196d02..e1695535f252 100644
> --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
> +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
> @@ -4424,10 +4424,12 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
>  	/*
>  	 * If this thread used poll, make sure we remove the waitqueue
>  	 * from any epoll data structures holding it with POLLFREE.
> -	 * waitqueue_active() is safe to use here because we're holding
> -	 * the inner lock.
>  	 */
>  	if ((thread->looper & BINDER_LOOPER_STATE_POLL) &&
> +	    /*
> +	     * waitqueue_active() is safe to use here because we're holding
> +	     * the inner lock.
> +	     */

No, never comment _inside_ a if statement, that is not worth it.

checkpatch is a perl script that provides hints, there is no reason you
have to always follow it exactly. :)

thanks,

greg k-h