From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1425787AbcBRJXm (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:23:42 -0500 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:59264 "EHLO mout01.posteo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1425290AbcBRJXi (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 04:23:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: fix irqf_oneshot.cocci warnings To: Alexandre Belloni , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Julia Lawall References: <1455782816-5814-1-git-send-email-valentin.rothberg@posteo.net> <56C57D1E.805@samsung.com> <20160218085106.GP2189@piout.net> Cc: ldewangan@nvidia.com, kbuild-all@01.org, javier@osg.samsung.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, a.zummo@towertech.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, kbuild test robot From: Valentin Rothberg Message-ID: <56C58D98.1020600@posteo.net> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:23:36 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160218085106.GP2189@piout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Alexandre, On 2/18/16 9:51 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 18/02/2016 at 17:13:18 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote : >> On 18.02.2016 17:06, Valentin Rothberg wrote: >>> From: kbuild test robot >>> >>> Since commit 1c6c69525b40 ("genirq: Reject bogus threaded irq requests") >>> threaded IRQs without a primary handler need to be requested with >>> IRQF_ONESHOT, otherwise the request will fail. >>> >>> So pass the IRQF_ONESHOT flag in this case. >>> >>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci >>> >>> CC: Laxman Dewangan >>> Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu >>> Signed-off-by: Valentin Rothberg >>> --- >>> drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Nack, because: >> 1. AFAIR this is a false positive. >> 2. Was it tested? Was it reproduced? Was the bug actually spotted or >> just coccicheck pointed this and you assumed that "request will fail"? >> >> Coccicheck is a great tool... but not necessarily for pointing run-time >> bugs. >> > > Definitively a false positive. > > Julia, I've been receiving quite a lot of those, is it possible to add a > note that this generates false positives to try to stop people from > blindly sending patches? I would have expected Valentin to know that > though. I don't have the device-specific knowledge for this issue. It really looked like a true positive to me, so I am sorry for the noise. A warning about false positives seems promising. Kind regards, Valentin