public inbox for passt-dev@passt.top
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: passt-dev@passt.top, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] cppcheck: Suppress the suppression of a suppression
Date: Wed,  1 Oct 2025 19:52:00 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251001095202.3875003-5-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251001095202.3875003-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>

Apparently cppcheck 2.18.3 no longer trips the funcArgNamesDifferent
warning on our (re-)definition of close_range().  So instead we get an
unmatchedSuppression warning.

Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
---
 linux_dep.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/linux_dep.h b/linux_dep.h
index 1d9e1669..89e590c8 100644
--- a/linux_dep.h
+++ b/linux_dep.h
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ struct tcp_info_linux {
 #endif
 
 __attribute__ ((weak))
-/* cppcheck-suppress funcArgNamesDifferent */
+/* cppcheck-suppress [funcArgNamesDifferent,unmatchedSuppression] */
 int close_range(unsigned int first, unsigned int last, int flags) {
 	return syscall(SYS_close_range, first, last, flags);
 }
-- 
2.51.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-10-01  9:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-01  9:51 [PATCH 0/6] Test and linter fixups David Gibson
2025-10-01  9:51 ` [PATCH 1/6] test: Convince make not to accidentally delete exetool David Gibson
2025-10-02  3:26   ` David Gibson
2025-10-01  9:51 ` [PATCH 2/6] test: Add linting of Python test scripts David Gibson
2025-10-01 10:23   ` Stefano Brivio
2025-10-01 10:40     ` Paul Holzinger
2025-10-01 10:48       ` Stefano Brivio
2025-10-02  1:31         ` David Gibson
2025-10-02  1:09     ` David Gibson
2025-10-01  9:51 ` [PATCH 3/6] clang-tidy: Suppress redundant expression warning David Gibson
2025-10-01  9:52 ` David Gibson [this message]
2025-10-01  9:52 ` [PATCH 5/6] cppcheck: Suppress a buggy cppcheck warning David Gibson
2025-10-01  9:52 ` [PATCH 6/6] cppcheck: Suppress variable scope warnings in dhcpv6() David Gibson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20251001095202.3875003-5-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
    --cc=sbrivio@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://passt.top/passt

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for IMAP folder(s).