2021-11-24 09:31:06

by Ajith P V

Subject: [PATCH] binder: reframe comment to avoid warning

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 <[email protected]>
---
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.
+ */
waitqueue_active(&thread->wait)) {
wake_up_poll(&thread->wait, EPOLLHUP | POLLFREE);
}
--
2.17.1

2021-11-24 09:44:40

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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