From: Eric Long <hidden> Date: 2016-01-20 06:40:05
Both of the two patches optimize the code and remove the mistakes and
warnings detected by the check tools.
Eric Long (2):
coresight: tmc/etm4x: Remove the mistakes detected by sparse tool
coresight: Remove the mistakes detected by smatch tool
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 2 +-
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.c | 6 +++---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/of_coresight.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
From: Eric Long <hidden> Date: 2016-01-20 06:40:17
The dma_alloc_coherent return an "void *" not an "void __iomen *".
It uses the wrong parameters when calls dma_free coherent function,
and "DEVICE_ATTR_RO" should be defined as static.
The sparse tool output logs as the following:
coresight-etm4x.c:2224:1: warning: symbol 'dev_attr_trcoslsr' was
not declared. Should it be static?
coresight-etm4x.c:2225:1: warning: symbol 'dev_attr_trcpdcr' was
not declared. Should it be static?
coresight-etm4x.c:2226:1: warning: symbol 'dev_attr_trcpdsr' was
not declared. Should it be static?
coresight-tmc.c:199:23: warning: incorrect type in argument 1
(different address spaces)
coresight-tmc.c:199:23: expected void *<noident>
coresight-tmc.c:199:23: got void [noderef] <asn:2>*vaddr
coresight-tmc.c:336:30: warning: incorrect type in assignment
(different address spaces)
coresight-tmc.c:336:30: expected char *buf
coresight-tmc.c:336:30: got void [noderef] <asn:2>*
coresight-tmc.c:769:50: warning: incorrect type in argument 4
(different base types)
coresight-tmc.c:769:50: expected unsigned long long
[unsigned] [usertype] dma_handle
coresight-tmc.c:769:50: got restricted gfp_t
Signed-off-by: Eric Long <redacted>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 2 +-
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.c | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
From: Eric Long <hidden> Date: 2016-01-20 06:40:31
There is an unnecessary space at the front of the code.
The smatch tool output logs as the following:
of_coresight.c:89 of_coresight_alloc_memory() warn:
inconsistent indenting
Signed-off-by: Eric Long <redacted>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/of_coresight.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static int of_coresight_alloc_memory(struct device *dev,return-ENOMEM;/* Children connected to this component via @outports */-pdata->child_names=devm_kzalloc(dev,pdata->nr_outport*+pdata->child_names=devm_kzalloc(dev,pdata->nr_outport*sizeof(*pdata->child_names),GFP_KERNEL);if(!pdata->child_names)
On 19 January 2016 at 23:39, Eric Long [off-list ref] wrote:
Both of the two patches optimize the code and remove the mistakes and
warnings detected by the check tools.
Eric Long (2):
coresight: tmc/etm4x: Remove the mistakes detected by sparse tool
coresight: Remove the mistakes detected by smatch tool
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 2 +-
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.c | 6 +++---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/of_coresight.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Please run checkpath.pl on your patches. Also if the changes are of a
different nature, ex. indentation problem and wrong argument to a
function, please provide two separate patches.
Thanks,
Mathieu
From: Eric Long <hidden> Date: 2016-01-22 09:15:18
On 22 January 2016 at 00:56, Mathieu Poirier [off-list ref] wrote:
Please run checkpath.pl on your patches. Also if the changes are of a
different nature, ex. indentation problem and wrong argument to a
function, please provide two separate patches.
Hi Mathieu,
I had already ran checkpath.pl, and there was no error and warning.
All the changes are either indentation problems or wrong argument,
except one static defined problem. So I think there is no need to
separate the patch.
By the way, the patches I had send were created base on the check
tools, one for smatch and another for sparse. In case I need to separate
the patches, do I need to follow the this principle. Thanks.
Best Regards.
Eric
On 22 January 2016 at 02:15, Eric Long [off-list ref] wrote:
On 22 January 2016 at 00:56, Mathieu Poirier [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Please run checkpath.pl on your patches. Also if the changes are of a
different nature, ex. indentation problem and wrong argument to a
function, please provide two separate patches.
Hi Mathieu,
I had already ran checkpath.pl, and there was no error and warning.
Using a 4.4 kernel I got the following chackpatch warnings:
mpoirier at t430:~/work/linaro/coresight/kernel-maint$
./scripts/checkpatch.pl
0001-coresight-Remove-the-mistakes-detected-by-sparse-too.patch
0002-coresight-Remove-the-mistakes-detected-by-smatch-too.patch
---------------------------------------------------------------
0001-coresight-Remove-the-mistakes-detected-by-sparse-too.patch
---------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: A patch subject line should describe the change not the tool
that found it
#4:
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] coresight: Remove the mistakes detected by sparse tool
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 32 lines checked
0001-coresight-Remove-the-mistakes-detected-by-sparse-too.patch has
style problems, please review.
---------------------------------------------------------------
0002-coresight-Remove-the-mistakes-detected-by-smatch-too.patch
---------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: A patch subject line should describe the change not the tool
that found it
#4:
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] coresight: Remove the mistakes detected by smatch tool
total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 lines checked
0002-coresight-Remove-the-mistakes-detected-by-smatch-too.patch has
style problems, please review.
NOTE: If any of the errors are false positives, please report
them to the maintainer, see CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
mpoirier at t430:~/work/linaro/coresight/kernel-maint$ ls
All the changes are either indentation problems or wrong argument,
except one static defined problem. So I think there is no need to
separate the patch.
After fixing the above checkpatch warning bunching changes by tools
won't make sense anymore.
By the way, the patches I had send were created base on the check
tools, one for smatch and another for sparse. In case I need to separate
the patches, do I need to follow the this principle. Thanks.
It's usually one semantic change per patch - the tool that highlighted
the problem is secondary.