From: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com> To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "cocci@systeme.lip6.fr" <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>, Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>, "nicolas.palix@imag.fr" <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>, "mmarek@suse.com" <mmarek@suse.com>, "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>, "ishkamiel@gmail.com" <ishkamiel@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:01:52 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF5F9CA@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708171346010.3748@hadrien> > > +identifier fname =~ ".*free.*"; > > +identifier fname2 =~ ".*destroy.*"; > > +identifier fname3 =~ ".*del.*"; > > +identifier fname4 =~ ".*queue_work.*"; > > +identifier fname5 =~ ".*schedule_work.*"; > > +identifier fname6 =~ ".*call_rcu.*"; > > Personally, I find the above regular expressions much easier to understand > than the merged version that Markus proposed. I really don't have a strong opinion on the presentation side. One is more compact, the above one perhaps a bit clearer for unexperienced reader (like myself). Sometimes when I try to read patterns from cocci folder, it takes me really a while to understand what is happening, which is not the case with simple expression above. I have just considered myself to be too new into this and therefore sticked to simple expressions to make sure I am minimizing functional mistakes. But the performance issue is > only on whether to use regular expressions or not. If you use regular > expressions, Coccinelle will not do some optimizations. But once you > decide to use regular expressions, the performance hit is already taken - > for a good cause here, to my understanding. Ok, so then performance is not even a factor. Thank you for the explanation! So just put whatever you find > convenient, in terms of readability, precision, etc. It seems that del is > not very precise, because it is a substring of multiple words with > different meanings. Maybe it should be improved, or maybe one can just > live with the false positives (eg delay), if they actually are false > positives. This is the problem that some of them might be and some not. I can call the queuing works explicitly: identifier fname4 =~ ".*queue_work.*"; identifier fname5 =~ ".*queue_delayed_work.*"; Then there is no need to match "delay", but I still like to match both "delete" and "del". Best Regards, Elena. > > julia
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: elena.reshetova@intel.com (Reshetova, Elena) To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:01:52 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF5F9CA@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708171346010.3748@hadrien> > > +identifier fname =~ ".*free.*"; > > +identifier fname2 =~ ".*destroy.*"; > > +identifier fname3 =~ ".*del.*"; > > +identifier fname4 =~ ".*queue_work.*"; > > +identifier fname5 =~ ".*schedule_work.*"; > > +identifier fname6 =~ ".*call_rcu.*"; > > Personally, I find the above regular expressions much easier to understand > than the merged version that Markus proposed. I really don't have a strong opinion on the presentation side. One is more compact, the above one perhaps a bit clearer for unexperienced reader (like myself). Sometimes when I try to read patterns from cocci folder, it takes me really a while to understand what is happening, which is not the case with simple expression above. I have just considered myself to be too new into this and therefore sticked to simple expressions to make sure I am minimizing functional mistakes. But the performance issue is > only on whether to use regular expressions or not. If you use regular > expressions, Coccinelle will not do some optimizations. But once you > decide to use regular expressions, the performance hit is already taken - > for a good cause here, to my understanding. Ok, so then performance is not even a factor. Thank you for the explanation! So just put whatever you find > convenient, in terms of readability, precision, etc. It seems that del is > not very precise, because it is a substring of multiple words with > different meanings. Maybe it should be improved, or maybe one can just > live with the false positives (eg delay), if they actually are false > positives. This is the problem that some of them might be and some not. I can call the queuing works explicitly: identifier fname4 =~ ".*queue_work.*"; identifier fname5 =~ ".*queue_delayed_work.*"; Then there is no need to match "delay", but I still like to match both "delete" and "del". Best Regards, Elena. > > julia
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-29 9:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-08-16 11:52 [PATCH v3] provide rule for finding refcounters Elena Reshetova 2017-08-16 11:52 ` [Cocci] " Elena Reshetova 2017-08-16 11:52 ` [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Elena Reshetova 2017-08-16 11:52 ` [Cocci] " Elena Reshetova 2017-08-16 17:00 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring 2017-08-17 7:22 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-17 11:31 ` SF Markus Elfring 2017-08-17 11:50 ` [PATCH] " Julia Lawall 2017-08-17 11:50 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall 2017-08-29 9:01 ` Reshetova, Elena [this message] 2017-08-29 9:01 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-16 14:16 ` [PATCH v3] provide rule for finding refcounters Julia Lawall 2017-08-16 14:16 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall 2017-08-29 8:54 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-29 8:54 ` [Cocci] " Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-29 9:23 ` Julia Lawall 2017-08-29 9:23 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall 2017-08-29 10:57 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-29 10:57 ` [Cocci] " Reshetova, Elena -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2017-09-01 9:40 [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Elena Reshetova 2018-06-14 23:58 ` Kees Cook 2018-06-15 5:06 ` Julia Lawall 2018-06-18 13:47 ` Masahiro Yamada 2017-08-30 6:15 [PATCH v4] provide rule for finding refcounters Elena Reshetova 2017-08-30 6:15 ` [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Elena Reshetova 2017-08-30 12:26 ` Julia Lawall 2017-08-30 12:44 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-30 13:06 ` Julia Lawall 2017-08-31 9:46 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-14 5:59 [PATCH v2] coccinelle: provide rule for finding refcounters Elena Reshetova 2017-08-14 5:59 ` [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Elena Reshetova 2017-08-14 14:16 ` Julia Lawall 2017-08-15 12:19 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-07-18 7:48 [PATCH] Coccinelle report script for refcounters Elena Reshetova 2017-07-18 7:48 ` [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script Elena Reshetova 2017-07-18 16:21 ` Kees Cook 2017-07-19 10:54 ` Reshetova, Elena 2017-08-04 15:23 ` Julia Lawall 2017-08-07 11:06 ` Reshetova, Elena
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=2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF5F9CA@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com \ --to=elena.reshetova@intel.com \ --cc=Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr \ --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \ --cc=ishkamiel@gmail.com \ --cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mmarek@suse.com \ --cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.