From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>,
Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Adjusting SmPL script “ptr_ret.cocci”?
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 18:05:29 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909071804090.2562@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c8e0db8a-1f96-dac0-791c-43e2d1e1cf05@web.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1894 bytes --]
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have taken another look at a known script for the semantic patch language.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci?id=1e3778cb223e861808ae0daccf353536e7573eed#n3
>
> I got the impression that duplicate SmPL code can be reduced here.
> So I tried the following approach out.
>
> …
> @depends on patch@
> expression ptr;
> @@
> (
> (
> - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0;
> |
> - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); return 0;
> )
> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr);
> |
> - (IS_ERR(ptr) ? PTR_ERR(ptr) : 0)
> + PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr)
> )
> …
>
>
> Unfortunately, I got the following information then for a test transformation.
>
> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch -D patch scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci drivers/spi/spi-gpio.c
> …
> 29: no available token to attach to
>
>
> It seems that the Coccinelle software “1.0.7-00218-gf284bf36” does not like
> the addition of the shown return statement after a nested SmPL disjunction.
> But the following SmPL code variant seems to work as expected.
>
>
> …
> @depends on patch@
> expression ptr;
> @@
> (
> - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0;
> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr);
> |
> - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); return 0;
> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr);
> |
> - (IS_ERR(ptr) ? PTR_ERR(ptr) : 0)
> + PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr)
> )
> …
>
>
> How do you think about to reduce subsequent SmPL rules also according to
> a possible recombination of affected implementation details?
There is not going to be any change with respect to this issue. It's fine
when replacing one statement by another, but introduces complexity when
removing something more complex. And there's not point to have something
that works in only one special case.
julia
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-07 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-07 14:54 [Cocci] Adjusting SmPL script “ptr_ret.cocci”? Markus Elfring
2019-09-07 16:05 ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2019-09-07 16:20 ` Markus Elfring
2019-09-07 16:40 ` [Cocci] [PATCH] Coccinelle: Reduce rules in SmPL script “ptr_ret.cocci” Markus Elfring
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1909071804090.2562@hadrien \
--to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
--cc=allison@lohutok.net \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).