On Mon, 2015-10-19 at 12:10 -0400, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/10/18, Scott Matheina wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 04:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 10, 2015 08:57:55 PM Scott Matheina wrote:
[]
> >> diff --git a/kernel/auditfilter.c
b/kernel/auditfilter.c
[]
> >> @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ void audit_free_rule_rcu(struct
rcu_head *head)
> >> {
> >> struct audit_entry *e = container_of(head, struct audit_entry, rcu);
> >> audit_free_rule(e);
> >> +
> >> }
> > Why?
>
> I was following the error messages in checkpatch.pl, but the warning
> went away after adding this line. No problem with the code.
That sounds like a bug in checkpatch.pl, since that blank line should be
tween the declaration and the function call.
checkpatch message asks for a blank line after the
"struct audit_entry *e = ..." declaration.
> >> while (*list != ~0U) {
> >> +
> >> unsigned n = *list++;
> >> if (n >= AUDIT_BITMASK_SIZE * 32 - AUDIT_SYSCALL_CLASSES) {
> >> kfree(p);
> > Why?
>
> This is the same as above. Just going through the checkpatch.pl
> script, and looking for warnings to fix.
Again, another manifestation of that bug? That blank line should be
after the declaration and before the if statement.
[]
Well, I agree, you have to start somewhere... Too bad you hit a bug
in
checkpatch.pl!
Here too, not a bug in checkpatch.
checkpatch output asks for a blank line after the
"unsigned n" declaration, not before.