On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:28:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Dan Carpenter (2018-05-09 23:59:51) > > It would be nice to make things static check clean. One idea would be > > that the static checker could ignore resource leaks in __init functions. > > > > Typically if the stuff is so important that it doesn't work without it > then we throw in a panic() or a BUG() call to indicate that all hope is > lost. Otherwise, I'm not sure what's wrong with adding in proper error > paths for clean recovery. In clk_boston_setup() then we'd have to put a ton of BUG()s in there to silence all the warnings. Right now the static checkers only care about kmalloc() but in a year or two they'll be clever enough to care about everything leaked in this function. I don't think adding BUG() calls is a good idea. Plus, I have a private static checker warning for that. When the BTRFS filesystem was merged 10 years ago it used to call BUG() all the time if allocations failed so I made a static checker warning to spot that anti-pattern... regards, dan carpenter
