Not really new. This code won't move out of staging until these are
fixed.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:54:35AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
TO: Dave Jones da...@redhat.com
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Hi Dave,
FYI, there are new smatch
This is a style question and not a real bug:
Which is better:
OPTION #1: ignore static checker warnings
for (i = 0; i ARRAY_SIZE(x); i++) {
if (found)
break;
}
x[i] = 0;
OPTION #2: stop on the last element
for (i = 0; i
The real bug is that bottom_half is unbalanced because we lock with
spin_lock(node-lock) but tipc_node_unlock() which calls
spin_unlock_bh().
regards,
dan carpenter
---
Hi Jon,
FYI, there are new smatch warnings show up in
tree:
