Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181102152637.GA3105@hp-pavilion-15-notebook-pc-brajeswar>
 <20181102182905.3klrdw4dxapeoiib@tower> <CAFqt6zYmBFQ7gDJJkYAhPzPYyLGsDqOdr8ctXmYbd7e9sv75xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEdQ38Fh99QmusGbEBi9TjUKQbQDX90pEaUC5Y=s-BL=RQ3o_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFqt6zboDwTNUkvhRi2s=LUnqhvXoHtGQFkrUrW+2bCEb=5RRQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFqt6zboDwTNUkvhRi2s=LUnqhvXoHtGQFkrUrW+2bCEb=5RRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:14:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEdQ38FNiY78zXMtqCUCjiGYBfjHXnDTQia3a62hJ_6UG3O+gw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] include/asm/cmpxchg.h: Remove duplicate header
To:     jrdr.linux@gmail.com
Cc:     Michael Cree <mcree@orcon.net.nz>, brajeswar.linux@gmail.com,
        Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, sabyasachi.linux@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:31 AM Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:55 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We run the static analyser "make includecheck" which list out files where
> > > duplicate headers can be removed and based on that we thought to remove
> > > from this file. Didn't understood about the existence of second include ??
> >
> >
> > #define ____xchg(type, args...)         __xchg ## type ## _local(args)
> > #define ____cmpxchg(type, args...)      __cmpxchg ## type ## _local(args)
> > #include <asm/xchg.h>
> > [snip]
> > #undef ____xchg
> > #undef ____cmpxchg
> > #define ____xchg(type, args...)         __xchg ##type(args)
> > #define ____cmpxchg(type, args...)      __cmpxchg ##type(args)
> > #include <asm/xchg.h>
> >
> > asm/xchg.h has a comment at the top that says
> >
> > /*
> >  * xchg/xchg_local and cmpxchg/cmpxchg_local share the same code
> >  * except that local version do not have the expensive memory barrier.
> >  * So this file is included twice from asm/cmpxchg.h.
> >  */
>
> Thanks Matt. Sorry for the noise.
> Is there any way to exclude it from static analyser that someone else will
> not do the same mistake in future ?

Since this is not an uncommon pattern in C, I think any static
analysis tool that attempts to find duplicate includes should attempt
to recognize such a pattern.

That, or humans should review the output of their static analysis
tools. Or you could try to compile the patches produced. I think any
of those would have caught the problem with the patch.