[PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Johan Hovold]

This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
to delete overly complex return code processing").

There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
a clear separation of success and error paths.

Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.

Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
---
 scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci | 180 ----------------------------
 1 file changed, 180 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci

diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
deleted file mode 100644
index e8b6313b116f..000000000000
--- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,180 +0,0 @@
-/// Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
-/// preceding function call.
-///
-// Confidence: High
-// Copyright: (C) 2014 Julia Lawall, INRIA/LIP6.  GPLv2.
-// Copyright: (C) 2014 Gilles Muller, INRIA/LiP6.  GPLv2.
-// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/
-// Comments:
-// Options: --no-includes --include-headers
-
-virtual patch
-virtual context
-virtual org
-virtual report
-
-@r depends on patch@
-local idexpression e;
-identifier i,f,fn;
-@@
-
-fn(...) { <...
-- e@i =
-+ return
-    f(...);
--if (i != 0) return i;
--return 0;
-...> }
-
-@depends on patch@
-identifier r.i;
-type t;
-@@
-
--t i;
- ... when != i
-
-@depends on patch@
-expression e;
-@@
-
--if (e != 0)
-   return e;
--return 0;
-
-// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-@s1 depends on context || org || report@
-local idexpression e;
-identifier i,f,fn;
-position p,p1,p2;
-@@
-
-fn(...) { <...
-* e@i@p = f(...);
-  if (\(i@p1 != 0\|i@p2 < 0\))
-     return i;
-  return 0;
-...> }
-
-@s2 depends on context || org || report forall@
-identifier s1.i;
-type t;
-position q,s1.p;
-expression e,f;
-@@
-
-* t i@q;
-  ... when != i
-  e@p = f(...);
-
-@s3 depends on context || org || report@
-expression e;
-position p1!=s1.p1;
-position p2!=s1.p2;
-@@
-
-*if (\(e@p1 != 0\|e@p2 < 0\))
-   return e;
- return 0;
-
-// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-@script:python depends on org@
-p << s1.p;
-p1 << s1.p1;
-q << s2.q;
-@@
-
-cocci.print_main("decl",q)
-cocci.print_secs("use",p)
-cocci.include_match(False)
-
-@script:python depends on org@
-p << s1.p;
-p2 << s1.p2;
-q << s2.q;
-@@
-
-cocci.print_main("decl",q)
-cocci.print_secs("use with questionable test",p)
-cocci.include_match(False)
-
-@script:python depends on org@
-p << s1.p;
-p1 << s1.p1;
-@@
-
-cocci.print_main("use",p)
-
-@script:python depends on org@
-p << s1.p;
-p2 << s1.p2;
-@@
-
-cocci.print_main("use with questionable test",p)
-
-@script:python depends on org@
-p << s3.p1;
-@@
-
-cocci.print_main("test",p)
-
-@script:python depends on org@
-p << s3.p2;
-@@
-
-cocci.print_main("questionable test",p)
-
-// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-@script:python depends on report@
-p << s1.p;
-p1 << s1.p1;
-q << s2.q;
-@@
-
-msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified and declaration on line %s can be dropped" % (q[0].line)
-coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
-cocci.include_match(False)
-
-@script:python depends on report@
-p << s1.p;
-p1 << s1.p1;
-q << s2.q
-;
-@@
-
-msg = "WARNING: end returns may be simpified if negative or 0 value and declaration on line %s can be dropped" % (q[0].line)
-coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
-cocci.include_match(False)
-
-@script:python depends on report@
-p << s1.p;
-p1 << s1.p1;
-@@
-
-msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified"
-coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
-
-@script:python depends on report@
-p << s1.p;
-p2 << s1.p2;
-@@
-
-msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified if negative or 0 value"
-coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
-
-@script:python depends on report@
-p << s3.p1;
-@@
-
-msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified"
-coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
-
-@script:python depends on report@
-p << s3.p2;
-@@
-
-msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified if tested value is negative or 0"
-coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
-- 
2.4.9

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:

> This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
> to delete overly complex return code processing").
> 
> There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
> the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
> a clear separation of success and error paths.
> 
> Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
> remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
> posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.

What do you mean by "posted"?  Are you referring to 0-day build testing 
or individual usage of make coccicheck?  Maybe it would make sense to 
remove the semantic patch from 0-day build testing but leave it in the 
kernel, perhaps removing the < 0 case because that one in practice doesn't 
seem to turn up much that is useful?

Perhaps it could also be improved to detect a previous != 0 case and then 
not return a warning.  On some functions, this change can make some nice 
simplifications.

julia

> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> ---
>  scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci | 180 ----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 180 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> deleted file mode 100644
> index e8b6313b116f..000000000000
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,180 +0,0 @@
> -/// Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
> -/// preceding function call.
> -///
> -// Confidence: High
> -// Copyright: (C) 2014 Julia Lawall, INRIA/LIP6.  GPLv2.
> -// Copyright: (C) 2014 Gilles Muller, INRIA/LiP6.  GPLv2.
> -// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/
> -// Comments:
> -// Options: --no-includes --include-headers
> -
> -virtual patch
> -virtual context
> -virtual org
> -virtual report
> -
> -@r depends on patch@
> -local idexpression e;
> -identifier i,f,fn;
> -@@
> -
> -fn(...) { <...
> -- e@i =
> -+ return
> -    f(...);
> --if (i != 0) return i;
> --return 0;
> -...> }
> -
> -@depends on patch@
> -identifier r.i;
> -type t;
> -@@
> -
> --t i;
> - ... when != i
> -
> -@depends on patch@
> -expression e;
> -@@
> -
> --if (e != 0)
> -   return e;
> --return 0;
> -
> -// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -@s1 depends on context || org || report@
> -local idexpression e;
> -identifier i,f,fn;
> -position p,p1,p2;
> -@@
> -
> -fn(...) { <...
> -* e@i@p = f(...);
> -  if (\(i@p1 != 0\|i@p2 < 0\))
> -     return i;
> -  return 0;
> -...> }
> -
> -@s2 depends on context || org || report forall@
> -identifier s1.i;
> -type t;
> -position q,s1.p;
> -expression e,f;
> -@@
> -
> -* t i@q;
> -  ... when != i
> -  e@p = f(...);
> -
> -@s3 depends on context || org || report@
> -expression e;
> -position p1!=s1.p1;
> -position p2!=s1.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -*if (\(e@p1 != 0\|e@p2 < 0\))
> -   return e;
> - return 0;
> -
> -// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -q << s2.q;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("decl",q)
> -cocci.print_secs("use",p)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p2 << s1.p2;
> -q << s2.q;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("decl",q)
> -cocci.print_secs("use with questionable test",p)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("use",p)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p2 << s1.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("use with questionable test",p)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s3.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("test",p)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s3.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("questionable test",p)
> -
> -// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -q << s2.q;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified and declaration on line %s can be dropped" % (q[0].line)
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -q << s2.q
> -;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns may be simpified if negative or 0 value and declaration on line %s can be dropped" % (q[0].line)
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p2 << s1.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified if negative or 0 value"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s3.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s3.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified if tested value is negative or 0"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -- 
> 2.4.9
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Johan Hovold]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:20:10AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
> > This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
> > to delete overly complex return code processing").
> > 
> > There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
> > the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
> > a clear separation of success and error paths.
> > 
> > Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
> > remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
> > posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.
> 
> What do you mean by "posted"?  Are you referring to 0-day build testing 
> or individual usage of make coccicheck?  Maybe it would make sense to 
> remove the semantic patch from 0-day build testing but leave it in the 
> kernel, perhaps removing the < 0 case because that one in practice doesn't 
> seem to turn up much that is useful?

Individuals running coccicheck on in-kernel code and posting patches to
"fix warnings", where the end result is not necessarily an improvement.

But I don't think these warnings should be enabled for 0-day build
testing either as it is should be up to the author to decide what style
to prefer in each case.

> Perhaps it could also be improved to detect a previous != 0 case and then 
> not return a warning.  On some functions, this change can make some nice 
> simplifications.

Yes, that would at least improve things.

I don't think warnings should be generated at all for the following
code:

{
	int ret;

	ret = init_a(...);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	ret = init_b(...);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	return 0;
}

as it is (at least to me) preferred over:

{
	int ret;

	ret = init_a(...);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	return init_b(...);
}

for symmetry and readability reasons (e.g. I don't have to look at
init_b to figure out what the functions returns). And with a long
parameter list to init_b with line breaks, this would look even worse.

But either way, it should be up to the author of the code to decide what
style to use.

Thanks,
Johan

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Julia Lawall]

Do you consider that this function would be better off in two lines?

static int mxt_acquire_irq(struct mxt_data *data)
{
        int error;

        enable_irq(data->irq);

        error = mxt_process_messages_until_invalid(data);
        if (error)
                return error;

        return 0;
}

Would simplifying the code at the end of the following function be helpful
or not?

static int adnp_gpio_setup(struct adnp *adnp, unsigned int num_gpios)
{
        struct gpio_chip *chip = &adnp->gpio;
        int err;

        adnp->reg_shift = get_count_order(num_gpios) - 3;

        chip->direction_input = adnp_gpio_direction_input;
        chip->direction_output = adnp_gpio_direction_output;
        chip->get = adnp_gpio_get;
        chip->set = adnp_gpio_set;
        chip->can_sleep = true;

        if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS))
                chip->dbg_show = adnp_gpio_dbg_show;

        chip->base = -1;
        chip->ngpio = num_gpios;
        chip->label = adnp->client->name;
        chip->dev = &adnp->client->dev;
        chip->of_node = chip->dev->of_node;
        chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;

        err = gpiochip_add(chip);
        if (err)
                return err;

        return 0;
}

thanks,
julia

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Julia Lawall]

Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>

Perhaps there is a more restricted version that can be acceptable, but I'm
OK with dropping the current version.

julia

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:20:10AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >
> > > This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
> > > to delete overly complex return code processing").
> > >
> > > There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
> > > the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
> > > a clear separation of success and error paths.
> > >
> > > Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
> > > remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
> > > posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.
> >
> > What do you mean by "posted"?  Are you referring to 0-day build testing
> > or individual usage of make coccicheck?  Maybe it would make sense to
> > remove the semantic patch from 0-day build testing but leave it in the
> > kernel, perhaps removing the < 0 case because that one in practice doesn't
> > seem to turn up much that is useful?
>
> Individuals running coccicheck on in-kernel code and posting patches to
> "fix warnings", where the end result is not necessarily an improvement.
>
> But I don't think these warnings should be enabled for 0-day build
> testing either as it is should be up to the author to decide what style
> to prefer in each case.
>
> > Perhaps it could also be improved to detect a previous != 0 case and then
> > not return a warning.  On some functions, this change can make some nice
> > simplifications.
>
> Yes, that would at least improve things.
>
> I don't think warnings should be generated at all for the following
> code:
>
> {
> 	int ret;
>
> 	ret = init_a(...);
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
>
> 	ret = init_b(...);
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
>
> 	return 0;
> }
>
> as it is (at least to me) preferred over:
>
> {
> 	int ret;
>
> 	ret = init_a(...);
> 	if (ret)
> 		return ret;
>
> 	return init_b(...);
> }
>
> for symmetry and readability reasons (e.g. I don't have to look at
> init_b to figure out what the functions returns). And with a long
> parameter list to init_b with line breaks, this would look even worse.
>
> But either way, it should be up to the author of the code to decide what
> style to use.
>
> Thanks,
> Johan
>

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Julia Lawall]

Should have acked this message...

Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:

> This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
> to delete overly complex return code processing").
>
> There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
> the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
> a clear separation of success and error paths.
>
> Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
> remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
> posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> ---
>  scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci | 180 ----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 180 deletions(-)
>  delete mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
>
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> deleted file mode 100644
> index e8b6313b116f..000000000000
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/simple_return.cocci
> +++ /dev/null
> @@ -1,180 +0,0 @@
> -/// Simplify a trivial if-return sequence.  Possibly combine with a
> -/// preceding function call.
> -///
> -// Confidence: High
> -// Copyright: (C) 2014 Julia Lawall, INRIA/LIP6.  GPLv2.
> -// Copyright: (C) 2014 Gilles Muller, INRIA/LiP6.  GPLv2.
> -// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/
> -// Comments:
> -// Options: --no-includes --include-headers
> -
> -virtual patch
> -virtual context
> -virtual org
> -virtual report
> -
> -@r depends on patch@
> -local idexpression e;
> -identifier i,f,fn;
> -@@
> -
> -fn(...) { <...
> -- e@i =
> -+ return
> -    f(...);
> --if (i != 0) return i;
> --return 0;
> -...> }
> -
> -@depends on patch@
> -identifier r.i;
> -type t;
> -@@
> -
> --t i;
> - ... when != i
> -
> -@depends on patch@
> -expression e;
> -@@
> -
> --if (e != 0)
> -   return e;
> --return 0;
> -
> -// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -@s1 depends on context || org || report@
> -local idexpression e;
> -identifier i,f,fn;
> -position p,p1,p2;
> -@@
> -
> -fn(...) { <...
> -* e@i@p = f(...);
> -  if (\(i@p1 != 0\|i@p2 < 0\))
> -     return i;
> -  return 0;
> -...> }
> -
> -@s2 depends on context || org || report forall@
> -identifier s1.i;
> -type t;
> -position q,s1.p;
> -expression e,f;
> -@@
> -
> -* t i@q;
> -  ... when != i
> -  e@p = f(...);
> -
> -@s3 depends on context || org || report@
> -expression e;
> -position p1!=s1.p1;
> -position p2!=s1.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -*if (\(e@p1 != 0\|e@p2 < 0\))
> -   return e;
> - return 0;
> -
> -// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -q << s2.q;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("decl",q)
> -cocci.print_secs("use",p)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p2 << s1.p2;
> -q << s2.q;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("decl",q)
> -cocci.print_secs("use with questionable test",p)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("use",p)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p2 << s1.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("use with questionable test",p)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s3.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("test",p)
> -
> -@script:python depends on org@
> -p << s3.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -cocci.print_main("questionable test",p)
> -
> -// -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -q << s2.q;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified and declaration on line %s can be dropped" % (q[0].line)
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -q << s2.q
> -;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns may be simpified if negative or 0 value and declaration on line %s can be dropped" % (q[0].line)
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -cocci.include_match(False)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p1 << s1.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s1.p;
> -p2 << s1.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified if negative or 0 value"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s3.p1;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> -
> -@script:python depends on report@
> -p << s3.p2;
> -@@
> -
> -msg = "WARNING: end returns can be simpified if tested value is negative or 0"
> -coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],msg)
> --
> 2.4.9
>
>

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Johan Hovold]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Do you consider that this function would be better off in two lines?
> 
> static int mxt_acquire_irq(struct mxt_data *data)
> {
>         int error;
> 
>         enable_irq(data->irq);
> 
>         error = mxt_process_messages_until_invalid(data);
>         if (error)
>                 return error;
> 
>         return 0;
> }

Actually no, but again I'd say it's up to the author to decide.

> Would simplifying the code at the end of the following function be helpful
> or not?
> 
> static int adnp_gpio_setup(struct adnp *adnp, unsigned int num_gpios)
> {
>         struct gpio_chip *chip = &adnp->gpio;
>         int err;
> 
>         adnp->reg_shift = get_count_order(num_gpios) - 3;
> 
>         chip->direction_input = adnp_gpio_direction_input;
>         chip->direction_output = adnp_gpio_direction_output;
>         chip->get = adnp_gpio_get;
>         chip->set = adnp_gpio_set;
>         chip->can_sleep = true;
> 
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS))
>                 chip->dbg_show = adnp_gpio_dbg_show;
> 
>         chip->base = -1;
>         chip->ngpio = num_gpios;
>         chip->label = adnp->client->name;
>         chip->dev = &adnp->client->dev;
>         chip->of_node = chip->dev->of_node;
>         chip->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> 
>         err = gpiochip_add(chip);
>         if (err)
>                 return err;
> 
>         return 0;
> }

I think this is just fine as is as well.

Thanks,
Johan

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Johan Hovold]

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 06:24:27PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> 
> Perhaps there is a more restricted version that can be acceptable, but I'm
> OK with dropping the current version.

Great, thanks!

Johan

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Johan Hovold]

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 06:25:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Should have acked this message...
> 
> Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> 
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
> > This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
> > to delete overly complex return code processing").
> >
> > There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
> > the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
> > a clear separation of success and error paths.
> >
> > Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
> > remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
> > posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>

Is anyone planning on picking this patch up?

Thanks,
Johan

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Michal Marek]

Dne 28.10.2015 v 10:54 Johan Hovold napsal(a):
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 06:25:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Should have acked this message...
>>
>> Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>
>>> This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
>>> to delete overly complex return code processing").
>>>
>>> There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
>>> the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
>>> a clear separation of success and error paths.
>>>
>>> Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
>>> remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
>>> posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> 
> Is anyone planning on picking this patch up?

It is already in kbuild.git as commit 1a617a8475e8, I apparenly forgot
to reply to this thread.

Michal

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: remove "complex return code" warnings

[Johan Hovold]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:04:56AM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> Dne 28.10.2015 v 10:54 Johan Hovold napsal(a):
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 06:25:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> Should have acked this message...
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>
> >>> This effectively reverts 932058a5d5f9 ("coccinelle: misc: semantic patch
> >>> to delete overly complex return code processing").
> >>>
> >>> There can be both symmetry and readability reasons for not wanting to do
> >>> the final function call as part of the return statement and to maintain
> >>> a clear separation of success and error paths.
> >>>
> >>> Since this is in no way mandated by the coding standard, let's just
> >>> remove this semantic patch to avoid having "clean up" patches being
> >>> posted over and over in response to these Coccinelle warnings.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Is anyone planning on picking this patch up?
> 
> It is already in kbuild.git as commit 1a617a8475e8, I apparenly forgot
> to reply to this thread.

Ok, great.

Thanks,
Johan