Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 6 May 2022 09:09:13 +0800
From:   Philip Li <philip.li@intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dove: fix returnvar.cocci warnings
Message-ID: <YnR1OTpYADQy6Xa8@rli9-dbox>
References: <202205031017.4TwMan3l-lkp@intel.com>
 <YnCXTPrbLhvfRVDm@e3a974050dc4>
 <CAK8P3a1xMeLa72YKMufdej6KguDwiSXtZmMqRxOt5B05x_fx3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <8704209d-d487-a297-b05a-5db99f5f808c@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8704209d-d487-a297-b05a-5db99f5f808c@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 09:31:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/3/22 00:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 4:45 AM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> >> From: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >>
> >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/dma.c:82:10-16: Unneeded variable: "errata". Return "0" on line 161
> >>
> >>  Remove unneeded variable used to store return value.
> >>
> >> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/returnvar.cocci
> >>
> >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> > I checked the patch, and unfortunately it is wrong, the current code
> > needs to stay.
> > The problem is the SET_DMA_ERRATA() macro that accesses the
> > local 'errata' variable.
> 
> 0day folks, do we have humans looking over these before they're going
> out to the list?  If not, can we add some?  If so, can the humans get a
> little more discerning? ;)

Sorry all for the bad patch. So far, we pick up several cocci warnings that
we have confidence based on early result analysis and feedback, for these
warnings, 0day sends out patch automatically.

Thanks for the suggestion Dave, We will change current process to be more
conservative and to avoid false patch by adding human analysis.

Thanks