leandrof/linux
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Minki/linux
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

checkpatch: check for uncommented waitqueue_active()

Browse Source 
Linus sayeth:

: Pretty much every single time people use this "if
: (waitqueue_active())" model, it tends to be a bug, because it means
: that there is zero serialization with people who are just about to go
: to sleep. It's fundamentally racy against all the "wait_event()" loops
: that carefully do memory barriers between testing conditions and going
: to sleep, because the memory barriers now don't exist on the waking
: side.
:
: So I'm making a new rule: if you use waitqueue_active(), I want an
: explanation for why it's not racy with the waiter. A big comment about
: the memory ordering, or about higher-level locks that are held by the
: caller, or something.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
Joe Perches 2015-06-25 15:02:46 -07:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent cbdc281019
commit cb426e99ff
1 changed files with 7 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
scripts/checkpatch.pl
View File

@ -4898,6 +4898,13 @@ sub process {
"memory barrier without comment\n" . $herecurr);
}
}
# check for waitqueue_active without a comment.
if ($line =~ /\bwaitqueue_active\s*\(/) {
if (!ctx_has_comment($first_line, $linenr)) {
WARN("WAITQUEUE_ACTIVE",
"waitqueue_active without comment\n" . $herecurr);
}
}
# check of hardware specific defines
if ($line =~ m@^.\s*\#\s*if.*\b(__i386__|__powerpc64__|__sun__|__s390x__)\b@ && $realfile !~ m@include/asm-@) {
CHK("ARCH_DEFINES",