Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a0d1:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp629551pxa; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:23:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzGhAPK+BTkn+qBJXEf7lQV6jc6X2Ac4T5QxzNwnI1uGc0AJw0as4WhVuaLGfmfKx5HJ7F X-Received: by 2002:aa7:da52:: with SMTP id w18mr4139284eds.367.1597436620949; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:23:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1597436620; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=lNjP7SGi7y9MZfrKyZNR0G0SybI0FOO1BWGjbR0vHc0zsZbidTK0awRbGwF33Eli04 xruiNFwwARiTXa4wgLVpTArzPeMhOio2wGCo7jM5AzZg2lKG+VbRLqW+Rkvw8wdrkOyU tQuh9GpHRIDOu7mtek0iGzWDjIUeSxsJkLKWssWVPnpniitJjWyYH/mnxGF7p893Z0xM 2Y1b5zp8XOPslTH9zmA0dazLectIPz28l4fQ4ntoGDEcjGF2mkt+H9OCo+kkqizHokSN xlJZl1aoc6EZF4mnpPapOPWYjbzZ4dmcDTRc25wcGhe1IWrjR5mXOQsofywrY6YrtMhG lMiA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=hlEKaoYA7QpBgylRl2kP/lfM7iO+jNCJk1Nz0lzowlk=; b=i8zQ92cTAj10/+N8LyxjbhkfLzXnc0IJoohCl4ezZ9z2geON/ciTz6jMf0BppLFUN6 lC/CWHne6Q9pxhpgZjnLLVsnfMX2YEhamjSO9FVFUvi1EyyRcTvdh6Q/z02xtneOfUKc qy0NVb5Rtg9cbHIukZ2Is86V9JRfiyL7ZDLWt+Jz8BE+3/+efBBZAXEg6zNbBYxFhEh2 cLxl7Erd9fndFux+0G77m8TxHXIDMOhiiPfxMaOA9a3AgVmUguOatg5e4AM7s6LicQhB K9w8CV4bRrkDtfGOHB9L66WaISGJOnlTpHp1m+75bj4FfdtMaMi7HUlp5Pr2IJc8lqBE jQOw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id dg23si5909813edb.12.2020.08.14.13.23.10; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726845AbgHNTwd (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:52:33 -0400 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:2535 "EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726362AbgHNTwd (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:52:33 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,313,1592863200"; d="scan'208";a="356566291" Received: from abo-173-121-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Aug 2020 21:52:13 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 21:52:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Thomas Gleixner cc: kernel test robot , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , Jan Kara , Nicolas Palix Subject: Re: fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:2430:2-8: preceding lock on line 2413 In-Reply-To: <87364pkock.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Message-ID: References: <202008141412.mP88ccpD%lkp@intel.com> <878sehl5e4.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <87364pkock.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Julia, > > On Fri, Aug 14 2020 at 21:00, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> That's clearly a false positive. Is there anything what can be done to > >> help that cocci script here? > > > > I have a better version that needs to get pushed. > > > > But normally these pass through me. Did you get it directly from kbuild? > > Yes, because I touched the affected lines last :) Actually, that's not the point. Normally, I get all the reports on this case, and then I forward them if they look ok. If I forwarded something incorrect, then sorry about that. If the policy has changed for this rule to be sending the reports out directlty to the recipients, then I think it should be changed back. There are a lot of real bugs with lock usage, but there are alot of false positives too. Specifically, the rule looks for the case with identical if tests, but only when the branches are identical too. Kbuild people, can this be adjusted? Or have I misunderstood the situation? thanks, julia