From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f180.google.com (mail-pl1-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C84B220F38 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2025 06:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761373447; cv=none; b=iVi1e0kEOpbOWju0cG5Ry000gZFcuJaePMyRbOJs8E4lN5PTL7RGKtHmaC61Q5yT2KhkY+0a7ZdrpkosMGakd8iiT/vdNPk9RPB9LsyqG7PQvghuEND7qJOK9uslZQy9KKSqlO2UTvxcsj9Ag12giGA43ukSrW8qep/y0CLZNDA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761373447; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FMw0+LtxF1XFnxeM6wfrdoWVKBhlpw1rYFoS6IMYePo=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=opVdpbL4awnJgHlqxGju82n0vhZxeuY/J7IeOvB0QKxK5WPCACyNahX4iNpYOocYruB+Osv6VANtPTJLsV2Y1rHSpWxwfJT4X9a2ZS0DUuX58lT0pyKFVz+0REZ+VGo+/xm3KgZIfHoMSkpkTX0CfVyDcryvMHUk1l0Sp82Tx/k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=XNzcWh2b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XNzcWh2b" Received: by mail-pl1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2698d47e776so23383785ad.1 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 23:24:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761373445; x=1761978245; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Uyn+lqnfj+DF2Mnswe7yP+PmxmYmbtnyxPSWDdj2IYQ=; b=XNzcWh2bsHRhXIg5xNeAIKsJqhwchKF8+WPtWD5qzgB821m367N5VOXqOYeVdByUsT f21ry8atQ2Z/BMPzisV1yEM5pma5LujBytxUM1X1Nnvn2NWepzUUnP/X6YCAiZ4viYa7 4ou9prwSwJLccbf3JmbYhKaGuEgiKeW45whAy1pSpbtXjxRnXMnxOzuk/QH7rwypRupH tqp2FvRl7v5fP1cmXi+Zt6EzSsTmSRAzSgkP9HZ7mNjHQ0fm0W8e9dl07UdmM6LF5r19 ld+/wDwtZDehK7hQPL6Ig6kulgA5qKcZUUk2Q8+7Gmzweh0qV+7xgz8/NX//HwwKaHq8 H3Eg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761373445; x=1761978245; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Uyn+lqnfj+DF2Mnswe7yP+PmxmYmbtnyxPSWDdj2IYQ=; b=VKJOr2BjWR+v9lskeDFJ++fnFaAXhWW/dQIN5RNMtvdaT/lR8wvYfR8h00IqqvHuFI UFsUKNXgjjAV7nYu7YLnfVhj/RqR6A4XEJaF9EQ8Wop4kp5oSX64+QuIpBsoUF+tDBJm iAmdbbBce8HDsN5ZkiBE+wCZfHDy2VIiP5jbq4oCisQxEB6HSty6cutvWj/h9j3pMVVE yYZunDM5qDvPRQX0aKVClA6off0leC8XxEIt8QgAFHEujA9zHxWUQCScJ3WMeYXIeS9n ofbrGSyihZZkF8rysPinXXOhzuY5T8XiKtGdEL/EOlAgchJzNp4TEmYdmXK9lyYyx5DN iI6A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWasgvlCuoZVqLGguyab0+SWGuMXDDZ7/9io6HcmmKVVjEB3jfgkKieH95A3I8DRW3Esl28tgLIHXg=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzku9n7UbW7MUQb/oKuGJSo/VuqORYtCiFENFSfzlsI/PjQrCsa TgQWXhCBgsPXNbOr7oPZ23Gnm7oTk22w86t6UtUZSDS5awuKH/dNT2z9 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvSBtUd392QTONImpT/yuB/eYsM1+tEE6bc8Kh+k5YeiPbHWnhQ80e/fEOnf9P FqDLh+NukkiXWNC2ykZih8UDY29KBbXeTPc5KXHBrVNyBFmkI1/Fh59mhEvAhl0RrgD91LWlAa7 Au2gAA1TjJ0LNv23Kj9gySCIH3nIfyyoio3jPnhutboWQ/6Jwz+GvkcgQ5Ia4wWw5ftlNQ4ofzu onssnDkAuxVUfeaXTHBTy2opb34NqHCm6PGHVAnbVmbBAJ3oL+iLEXbEl6vF2SPgcbgSNbeHS+B qdsuB03QSZqAdF9UcGZryWADDTtXjk4U3mEnwICXgnENdtUwJoH0Fi0MnONfVi0iJXPXdZ0hSZD U4jMr2KTe51IWI/Qa0YbMQX4WGpMNli8SlP/ZODHX3Xrfo01UNMHR90GeC8n1MYWn/uP6aEbgW7 uOoor+ijgW/sFza1KbQtq/ALDtYG1S5UkpDFS8cI/fwxhBCB05v3TBz8Gn X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHplQPVfCIQoY8PHDd3B2J4jw0QISC8FZ6gWYBjJGGEKcAtDwmwgPaM4vZb11xkzDseTqP+IA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:249:b0:25c:8005:3efb with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-290cba423a6mr366592795ad.54.1761373445251; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 23:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2401:4900:88f6:d7b0:443:a828:b6ba:688d? ([2401:4900:88f6:d7b0:443:a828:b6ba:688d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-29498e42ea7sm12204175ad.101.2025.10.24.23.23.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Oct 2025 23:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <81e6af8eea5b0399d1685797d0ea6a6ebc273270.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] add check for pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL From: ally heev To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Dwaipayan Ray , Lukas Bulwahn , Joe Perches , Jonathan Corbet , Andy Whitcroft , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hunter , Shuah Khan , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linux-pm , dan.j.williams@intel.com Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:56 +0530 In-Reply-To: References: <20251024-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v2-0-16c0900e8130@gmail.com> <20251024-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v2-2-16c0900e8130@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.1-1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 21:08 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:59:16PM +0530, Ally Heev wrote: > > pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL > > pose potential cleanup issues [1] when a function uses > > interdependent variables with cleanup attributes > >=20 > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/cleanup.html [1] > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68f7b830ec21a_10e910070@dwillia2-mobl= 4.notmuch/ > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams > > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev > > --- >=20 > I don't think this patch is a good idea... There are two issues to > consider 1) The absolute number over warnings. 500+ is too high. > 2) The ratio of bugs to false positives and we don't have any data on > that but I bet it's low. It needs to be at least 5%. For anything > lower than that, you're better off just reviewing code at random > instead of looking through warnings. >=20 > regards, > dan carpenter makes sense General question about the process for my understanding: Is checkpatch run on full tree by CI or someone and results reported regularly ? My understanding was that we would run it only on patches before submitting them Or we just run it on full tree before adding new checks to understand if they are catching real issues