* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER
@ 2020-07-18 5:56 ` Markus Elfring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle, Gilles Muller,
Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix
Cc: linux-kernel, kernel-janitors
> Applied.
Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment?
* https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568
* https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637
Regards,
Markus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 5:56 ` Markus Elfring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle, Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix Cc: linux-kernel, kernel-janitors > Applied. Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 5:56 ` Markus Elfring (?) @ 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Elfring Cc: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle, Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Applied. > > Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? > > * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 This one it complete nonsense. > > * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as well. Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over like that putting all of the virtual declarations on the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), then I would take your suggestions more seriously. julia > Regards, > Markus > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cocci] [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Elfring Cc: Michal Marek, Gilles Muller, kernel-janitors, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, Coccinelle On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Applied. > > Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? > > * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 This one it complete nonsense. > > * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as well. Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over like that putting all of the virtual declarations on the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), then I would take your suggestions more seriously. julia > Regards, > Markus > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Elfring Cc: Michal Marek, Gilles Muller, kernel-janitors, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, Coccinelle On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Applied. > > Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? > > * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 This one it complete nonsense. > > * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ > https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as well. Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over like that putting all of the virtual declarations on the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), then I would take your suggestions more seriously. julia > Regards, > Markus > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 7:09 ` Markus Elfring -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors >>> Applied. >> >> Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? >> >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 > > This one it complete nonsense. I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation in more constructive ways. >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 > > This on is indeed a problem. I find this feedback interesting. * How does it fit to your response “Applied”? * Will it trigger any more consequences? > Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code > that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented which can be still questionable. > and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over We come along different development views. > like that putting all of the virtual declarations on > the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. Will any more developers care also for SmPL coding style aspects? > then I would take your suggestions more seriously. Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood (and other factors), isn't it? Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 7:09 ` Markus Elfring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors >>> Applied. >> >> Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? >> >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 > > This one it complete nonsense. I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation in more constructive ways. >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 > > This on is indeed a problem. I find this feedback interesting. * How does it fit to your response “Applied”? * Will it trigger any more consequences? > Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code > that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented which can be still questionable. > and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over We come along different development views. > like that putting all of the virtual declarations on > the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. Will any more developers care also for SmPL coding style aspects? > then I would take your suggestions more seriously. Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood (and other factors), isn't it? Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 7:09 ` Markus Elfring (?) @ 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Elfring Cc: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle, Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2365 bytes --] On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> Applied. > >> > >> Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? > >> > >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 > > > > This one it complete nonsense. > > I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation > in more constructive ways. You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) This is not valid syntax in the semantic patch language. The branches of a \( \| \) have to be a valid expression, statement, type, etc, not some random string of tokens. > >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 > > > > This on is indeed a problem. > > I find this feedback interesting. > > * How does it fit to your response “Applied”? > > * Will it trigger any more consequences? > > > > Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code > > that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, > > Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented > which can be still questionable. These are not "usual risks". You can easily test out your suggestion by yourself to see if it produces valid code. If it doesn't, then don't make the suggestion. > > > > and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over > > We come along different development views. Whenever you propose the same thing say 10 times or more and it is rejected every time, I thikn you should be able to conclude that if you propose the same thing again it will be rejected. > > > like that putting all of the virtual declarations on > > the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), > > It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. No, I don't consider the effect to be desirable. > Will any more developers care also for SmPL coding style aspects? > > > > then I would take your suggestions more seriously. > > Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood > (and other factors), isn't it? Not really. My "change acceptance" increases when the person reporting them raises real problems that is blocking them in some work. And it decreases rapidly when the changes are almost all related to presumed "efficiencies" that have no impact in practice. julia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cocci] [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Elfring Cc: Michal Marek, Gilles Muller, kernel-janitors, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, Coccinelle [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2365 bytes --] On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> Applied. > >> > >> Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? > >> > >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 > > > > This one it complete nonsense. > > I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation > in more constructive ways. You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) This is not valid syntax in the semantic patch language. The branches of a \( \| \) have to be a valid expression, statement, type, etc, not some random string of tokens. > >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 > > > > This on is indeed a problem. > > I find this feedback interesting. > > * How does it fit to your response “Applied”? > > * Will it trigger any more consequences? > > > > Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code > > that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, > > Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented > which can be still questionable. These are not "usual risks". You can easily test out your suggestion by yourself to see if it produces valid code. If it doesn't, then don't make the suggestion. > > > > and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over > > We come along different development views. Whenever you propose the same thing say 10 times or more and it is rejected every time, I thikn you should be able to conclude that if you propose the same thing again it will be rejected. > > > like that putting all of the virtual declarations on > > the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), > > It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. No, I don't consider the effect to be desirable. > Will any more developers care also for SmPL coding style aspects? > > > > then I would take your suggestions more seriously. > > Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood > (and other factors), isn't it? Not really. My "change acceptance" increases when the person reporting them raises real problems that is blocking them in some work. And it decreases rapidly when the changes are almost all related to presumed "efficiencies" that have no impact in practice. julia [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Elfring Cc: Michal Marek, Gilles Muller, kernel-janitors, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, Coccinelle [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2365 bytes --] On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> Applied. > >> > >> Do you care for patch review concerns according to this SmPL script adjustment? > >> > >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 > > > > This one it complete nonsense. > > I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation > in more constructive ways. You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) This is not valid syntax in the semantic patch language. The branches of a \( \| \) have to be a valid expression, statement, type, etc, not some random string of tokens. > >> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/c3464cad-e567-9ef5-b4e3-a01e3b11120b@web.de/ > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/8/637 > > > > This on is indeed a problem. > > I find this feedback interesting. > > * How does it fit to your response “Applied”? > > * Will it trigger any more consequences? > > > > Markus, if you would limit your comments to suggesting SmPL code > > that is actually correct, ie that you have tested, > > Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented > which can be still questionable. These are not "usual risks". You can easily test out your suggestion by yourself to see if it produces valid code. If it doesn't, then don't make the suggestion. > > > > and 2) stop suggesting stupid things over and over > > We come along different development views. Whenever you propose the same thing say 10 times or more and it is rejected every time, I thikn you should be able to conclude that if you propose the same thing again it will be rejected. > > > like that putting all of the virtual declarations on > > the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), > > It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. No, I don't consider the effect to be desirable. > Will any more developers care also for SmPL coding style aspects? > > > > then I would take your suggestions more seriously. > > Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood > (and other factors), isn't it? Not really. My "change acceptance" increases when the person reporting them raises real problems that is blocking them in some work. And it decreases rapidly when the changes are almost all related to presumed "efficiencies" that have no impact in practice. julia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 9:16 ` Markus Elfring -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors >>>> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 >>> >>> This one it complete nonsense. >> >> I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation >> in more constructive ways. > > You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) I suggested also another adjustment. Can additional minus characters be avoided if such a source code search pattern would be specified in a single line? > This is not valid syntax in the semantic patch language. I hope that a solution can be found by our discussion. > The branches of a \( \| \) have to be a valid expression, statement, type, etc, Such information can become more interesting for safe application of SmPL disjunctions. > not some random string of tokens. I got further imaginations in this software area. Will the handling of optional transformation parameters be clarified better? >> Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented >> which can be still questionable. > > These are not "usual risks". You can easily test out your suggestion by > yourself to see if it produces valid code. Such an expectation can be reasonable in some cases. > If it doesn't, then don't make the suggestion. Would software limitations hinder any more improvements then? >>> like that putting all of the virtual declarations on >>> the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), >> >> It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. > > No, I don't consider the effect to be desirable. I propose to take another look at variations around source code verbosity. >> Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood >> (and other factors), isn't it? > > Not really. My "change acceptance" increases when the person reporting > them raises real problems that is blocking them in some work. I presented open issues accordingly. > And it decreases rapidly when the changes are almost all related to presumed > "efficiencies" that have no impact in practice. Change possibilities can get varying attention and corresponding development priorities. Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 9:16 ` Markus Elfring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors >>>> * https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/5c0dae88-e172-3ba6-f86c-d1a6238bb4c4@web.de/ >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/9/568 >>> >>> This one it complete nonsense. >> >> I hope that different views can be clarified for such a software situation >> in more constructive ways. > > You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) I suggested also another adjustment. Can additional minus characters be avoided if such a source code search pattern would be specified in a single line? > This is not valid syntax in the semantic patch language. I hope that a solution can be found by our discussion. > The branches of a \( \| \) have to be a valid expression, statement, type, etc, Such information can become more interesting for safe application of SmPL disjunctions. > not some random string of tokens. I got further imaginations in this software area. Will the handling of optional transformation parameters be clarified better? >> Patch reviews contain usual risks that suggestions are presented >> which can be still questionable. > > These are not "usual risks". You can easily test out your suggestion by > yourself to see if it produces valid code. Such an expectation can be reasonable in some cases. > If it doesn't, then don't make the suggestion. Would software limitations hinder any more improvements then? >>> like that putting all of the virtual declarations on >>> the same line would save space (it does, but who cares), >> >> It seems that you admit a possibly desirable effect. > > No, I don't consider the effect to be desirable. I propose to take another look at variations around source code verbosity. >> Your change acceptance is varying to your development mood >> (and other factors), isn't it? > > Not really. My "change acceptance" increases when the person reporting > them raises real problems that is blocking them in some work. I presented open issues accordingly. > And it decreases rapidly when the changes are almost all related to presumed > "efficiencies" that have no impact in practice. Change possibilities can get varying attention and corresponding development priorities. Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 12:14 ` Markus Elfring -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors > You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) Will the software development attention grow for a topic like “Extend support for handling of optional source code parts”? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/53 How do you think about another tiny example script for the semantic patch language? @display@ constant A, B; @@ *A ?| B elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --parse-cocci optional_disjunction_test3-20200718.cocci … warning: incompatible arity found on line 4 incompatible minus and plus code starting on lines 4 and 4 Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 12:14 ` Markus Elfring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-18 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Denis Efremov, Coccinelle Cc: Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix, linux-kernel, kernel-janitors > You proposed essentially \( A \| B \) \( | C \| \) Will the software development attention grow for a topic like “Extend support for handling of optional source code parts”? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/53 How do you think about another tiny example script for the semantic patch language? @display@ constant A, B; @@ *A ?| B elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch --parse-cocci optional_disjunction_test3-20200718.cocci … warning: incompatible arity found on line 4 incompatible minus and plus code starting on lines 4 and 4 Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 13:11 ` Denis Efremov -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Denis Efremov @ 2020-07-18 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Markus Elfring; +Cc: Coccinelle, linux-kernel Hi, On 7/18/20 9:45 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, > because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in > > - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) > (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| > \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); > > you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as > well. Thanks, Markus, Julia. I will send v3. Julia, is it ok with you, if I will drop the last patch with "selfcheck" this time? Regards, Denis ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cocci] [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 13:11 ` Denis Efremov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Denis Efremov @ 2020-07-18 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julia Lawall, Markus Elfring; +Cc: Coccinelle, linux-kernel Hi, On 7/18/20 9:45 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, > because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in > > - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) > (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| > \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); > > you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as > well. Thanks, Markus, Julia. I will send v3. Julia, is it ok with you, if I will drop the last patch with "selfcheck" this time? Regards, Denis _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 13:11 ` [Cocci] " Denis Efremov @ 2020-07-18 13:29 ` Julia Lawall -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denis Efremov; +Cc: Markus Elfring, Coccinelle, linux-kernel On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Denis Efremov wrote: > Hi, > > On 7/18/20 9:45 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, > > because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in > > > > - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) > > (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| > > \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); > > > > you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as > > well. > > Thanks, Markus, Julia. I will send v3. Julia, is it ok with you, if I will > drop the last patch with "selfcheck" this time? That would be perfect, thanks. julia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cocci] [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-18 13:29 ` Julia Lawall 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-07-18 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denis Efremov; +Cc: Markus Elfring, Coccinelle, linux-kernel On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Denis Efremov wrote: > Hi, > > On 7/18/20 9:45 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > This on is indeed a problem. I think it was not detected in testing, > > because in the current kernel the rule never applies. But Denis, in > > > > - to = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\) > > (size,\(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\| > > \(GFP_KERNEL\|GFP_USER\)|__GFP_NOWARN\)); > > > > you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as > > well. > > Thanks, Markus, Julia. I will send v3. Julia, is it ok with you, if I will > drop the last patch with "selfcheck" this time? That would be perfect, thanks. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER 2020-07-18 13:11 ` [Cocci] " Denis Efremov @ 2020-07-19 8:36 ` Markus Elfring -1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-19 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denis Efremov, Julia Lawall, Coccinelle Cc: linux-kernel, kernel-janitors, Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix >> you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as well. > > Thanks, Markus, Julia. I will send v3. How do you think about to discuss any remaining open issues already on the current software development version for your transformation approach? Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER @ 2020-07-19 8:36 ` Markus Elfring 0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread From: Markus Elfring @ 2020-07-19 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denis Efremov, Julia Lawall, Coccinelle Cc: linux-kernel, kernel-janitors, Gilles Muller, Masahiro Yamada, Michal Marek, Nicolas Palix >> you do indeed need to put - in front of the second and third lines as well. > > Thanks, Markus, Julia. I will send v3. How do you think about to discuss any remaining open issues already on the current software development version for your transformation approach? Regards, Markus ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-07-19 8:36 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-07-18 5:56 [v2 1/4] coccinelle: api: extend memdup_user transformation with GFP_USER Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 5:56 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 6:45 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 6:45 ` Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 7:09 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 7:09 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 8:41 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 8:41 ` Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 9:16 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 9:16 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 12:14 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 12:14 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-18 13:11 ` Denis Efremov 2020-07-18 13:11 ` [Cocci] " Denis Efremov 2020-07-18 13:29 ` Julia Lawall 2020-07-18 13:29 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall 2020-07-19 8:36 ` Markus Elfring 2020-07-19 8:36 ` Markus Elfring
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.