[PATCH] binder: reframe comment to avoid warning

[PATCH] binder: reframe comment to avoid warning

[Ajith P V]

binder.c file comment produce warning with checkpatch as below:
WARNING: waitqueue_active without comment

Placing the waitqueue_active comment just above waitqueue_active() avoid
this warning.

Signed-off-by: Ajith P V <ajithpv.linux@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/android/binder.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
index 49fb74196d02..e1695535f252 100644
--- a/drivers/android/binder.c
+++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
@@ -4424,10 +4424,12 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
 	/*
 	 * If this thread used poll, make sure we remove the waitqueue
 	 * from any epoll data structures holding it with POLLFREE.
-	 * waitqueue_active() is safe to use here because we're holding
-	 * the inner lock.
 	 */
 	if ((thread->looper & BINDER_LOOPER_STATE_POLL) &&
+	    /*
+	     * waitqueue_active() is safe to use here because we're holding
+	     * the inner lock.
+	     */
 	    waitqueue_active(&thread->wait)) {
 		wake_up_poll(&thread->wait, EPOLLHUP | POLLFREE);
 	}
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] binder: reframe comment to avoid warning

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 03:00:02PM +0530, Ajith P V wrote:
> binder.c file comment produce warning with checkpatch as below:
> WARNING: waitqueue_active without comment
> 
> Placing the waitqueue_active comment just above waitqueue_active() avoid
> this warning.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ajith P V <ajithpv.linux@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/android/binder.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
> index 49fb74196d02..e1695535f252 100644
> --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
> +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
> @@ -4424,10 +4424,12 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
>  	/*
>  	 * If this thread used poll, make sure we remove the waitqueue
>  	 * from any epoll data structures holding it with POLLFREE.
> -	 * waitqueue_active() is safe to use here because we're holding
> -	 * the inner lock.
>  	 */
>  	if ((thread->looper & BINDER_LOOPER_STATE_POLL) &&
> +	    /*
> +	     * waitqueue_active() is safe to use here because we're holding
> +	     * the inner lock.
> +	     */

No, never comment _inside_ a if statement, that is not worth it.

checkpatch is a perl script that provides hints, there is no reason you
have to always follow it exactly. :)

thanks,

greg k-h