On 11/6/17 5:52 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 04-11-17 03:08:06, Yang Shi wrote:
>> checkpatch.pl still reports the below in_atomic warning:
>>
>> WARNING: use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code
>> + if (in_atomic())
>>
>> But, in_atomic() has been used outside kernel dir for a long time, and
>> even drivers. So, remove the obsolete rule even though they can be
>> ignored.
>
> NAK. in_atomic is tricky and shouldn't be used. I would bet most of the
> usage is simply broken. See more http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Thanks for following up. Yes, it sounds so. However, there is not a
reliable and effective approach to check atomic context for both PREEMPT
and !PREEMPT.
Yang
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <[email protected]>
>> CC: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Not sure if removing the obsolete rule is preferred by checkpatch.pl, anyway
>> it sounds not make sense to keep invalid rule.
>>
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 11 -----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index 8b80bac..e8cf94f 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -6231,17 +6231,6 @@ sub process {
>> "Using $1 should generally have parentheses around the comparison\n" . $herecurr);
>> }
>>
>> -# whine mightly about in_atomic
>> - if ($line =~ /\bin_atomic\s*\(/) {
>> - if ($realfile =~ m@^drivers/@) {
>> - ERROR("IN_ATOMIC",
>> - "do not use in_atomic in drivers\n" . $herecurr);
>> - } elsif ($realfile !~ m@^kernel/@) {
>> - WARN("IN_ATOMIC",
>> - "use of in_atomic() is incorrect outside core kernel code\n" . $herecurr);
>> - }
>> - }
>> -
>> # whine about ACCESS_ONCE
>> if ($^V && $^V ge 5.10.0 &&
>> $line =~ /\bACCESS_ONCE\s*$balanced_parens\s*(=(?!=))?\s*($FuncArg)?/) {
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>
From 1583325069998343906@xxx Mon Nov 06 13:54:13 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583073096436484454
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread