On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 11:14 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 22:59 +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 > > > > > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/cleanup.html [1] > > > Link: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev <[email protected]> > > [] > > > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl > > [] > > > @@ -7728,6 +7728,12 @@ sub process { > > > ERROR("UNINITIALIZED_PTR_WITH_FREE", > > > "pointer '$1' with __free attribute should be > > > initialized\n" . $herecurr); > > > } > > > + > > > +# check for pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL > > > + while ($line =~ /\*\s*($Ident)\s+$FreeAttribute\s*=\s*NULL\b/g) > > > { > > > + WARN("NULL_INITIALIZED_PTR_WITH_FREE", > > > + "pointer '$1' with __free attribute should be > > > initialized to a non-NULL address\n" . $herecurr); > > > + } > > > } > > > > I think this a poor idea as almost all the instances where this > > initialization is done are fine. > > > > And there are a lot of them. > > > > $ git grep -P '\b__free\b.*=\s*NULL\s*;' | wc -l > > 490 > > That is significant. ...but you did say "almost" above. What about > moving this from WARN level to CHK level?
I have no idea how many instances in the tree are inappropriate. Do you? I believe it to be a difficult analysis problem. But given the number is likely to be extremely low, I think it should not be added to checkpatch even as a CHK. If you can show that the reporting rate of defects is significant, say >10%, then OK, but I rather doubt it's that high.
