Shuah,Apologies for the spam. I didn't format the initial correctly and needed two more tries to get it right (according to the kernel standard/best-practice). I can resubmit this patch.ThanksOn Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:39 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:Hi Mohammed,
Thanks for your patch.
On 8/12/20 5:43 PM, Mohammed Billoo wrote:
> This semantic patch looks for variables that are initialized to
> constants, arrays that are both declared and indexed with constants.
> A false positive will occur when a variable is initialized to 0, which
> must happen for auto variables. This will be resolved in a future patch.
>
> The patch was tested against the following snippet:
>
> int main()
> {
> int iarr[54]; /* instance 1 */
> int j = 0; /* instance 2 */
> int i = 1; /* instance 3 */
> iarr[0] = 3; /* instance 4 */
> return 0;
> }
>
> and it correctly identified instances 1, 3, and 4. It incorrectly
> identified instance 2, which will be addressed in a future patch.
Please include the output from the tool that corresponds to your
changes to the script in the commit log on a kernel file.
Also I see 3 patches with incremental changes to the script. Please
make this a patch series which will make it easier for reviewers.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--