On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:31 AM Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:55 AM Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
