[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbf51850-814a-4a30-8165-625d88f221a5@stanley.mountain>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:14:14 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Purva Yeshi <purvayeshi550@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] af_unix: Fix undefined 'other' error
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:15:15AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> So, hypothetically, Smatch could be enhanced and there wouldn't be any
> locking warnings with this patch applied?
Heh. No. What I meant to say was that none of this has anything to do
with Smatch. This is all Sparse stuff. But also I see now that my email
was wrong...
What happened is that we changed unix_sk() and that meant Sparse couldn't
parse the annotations and prints "error: undefined identifier 'other'".
The error disables Sparse checking for the file.
When we fix the error then the checking is enabled again. The v1 patch
which changes the annotation is better than the v2 patch because then
it's 9 warnings vs 11 warnings.
The warnings are all false positives. All old warnings are false
positives. And again, these are all Sparse warnings, not Smatch. Smatch
doesn't care about annotations. Smatch has different bugs completely.
;)
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists