[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68fbc771199cc_10e91006d@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:37:37 -0700
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Ally Heev
<allyheev@...il.com>, Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>, Lukas Bulwahn
<lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Andy Whitcroft
<apw@...onical.com>
CC: <workflows@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
David Hunter <david.hunter.linux@...il.com>, Shuah Khan
<skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, "Nishanth
Menon" <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-pm
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] add check for pointers with __free attribute
initialized to NULL
Joe Perches wrote:
[..]
> > > And there are a lot of them.
> > >
> > > $ git grep -P '\b__free\b.*=\s*NULL\s*;' | wc -l
> > > 490
> >
> > That is significant. ...but you did say "almost" above. What about
> > moving this from WARN level to CHK level?
>
> I have no idea how many instances in the tree are inappropriate.
> Do you? I believe it to be a difficult analysis problem.
>
> But given the number is likely to be extremely low, I think it should
> not be added to checkpatch even as a CHK.
>
> If you can show that the reporting rate of defects is significant,
> say >10%, then OK, but I rather doubt it's that high.
Fair enough. Ally, thanks for taking a look.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists