[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] checkpatch: volatile with a comment or sig_atomic_t is okay

[Paolo Bonzini]

From: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>

This assumes that the comment gives some justification;
"volatile sig_atomic_t" is also self-explanatory and usually
correct.

Discussed in:
'[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] dump-guest-memory.py: fix "You can't do that without a 
process to debug"'

Suggested-by: Fam Zheng <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
Message-Id: <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 34df753571..3dc27d9656 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -2475,8 +2475,11 @@ sub process {
 
 # no volatiles please
                my $asm_volatile = 
qr{\b(__asm__|asm)\s+(__volatile__|volatile)\b};
-               if ($line =~ /\bvolatile\b/ && $line !~ /$asm_volatile/) {
-                       ERROR("Use of volatile is usually wrong: see 
Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt\n" . $herecurr);
+               if ($line =~ /\bvolatile\b/ && $line !~ /$asm_volatile/ &&
+                    $line !~ /sig_atomic_t/ &&
+                    !ctx_has_comment($first_line, $linenr)) {
+                       my $msg = "Use of volatile is usually wrong, please add 
a comment\n" . $herecurr;
+                        ERROR($msg);
                }
 
 # warn about #if 0
-- 
2.14.3