Powered by Linux
Re: Recent wave of additional false negative warnings? — Semantic Matching Tool

Re: Recent wave of additional false negative warnings?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:35:33PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > it replaces 1025 with PARAM_SET (pushed minutes ago).
> 
> I just tried your recent update and I feel like it's definitely better now.
> 
> The memory barrier checking is definitely working, but apparently you look back
> not too far enough as one of the instances I have is still there, though.
> 

Ok.  I will tweak this.

> Also I think you forgot to remove debug prints in is_obvious_else(),
> so now I am having cryptic output like:
> lustre/ldlm/ldlm_lock.c:1733 ldlm_lock_enqueue() prev = 'rc == 302'
> lustre/ldlm/ldlm_lock.c:1733 ldlm_lock_enqueue() prev = 'rc'

Duh...  Sorry about that.  I didn't mean to commit that debug code.

> 
> The "passing zero to 'PTR_ERR'" check is also great!

Thanks.  :)

regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe smatch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Big List of Linux Books]

  Powered by Linux