From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757419AbaCEWa4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:30:56 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.14]:55385 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752970AbaCEWaz (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:30:53 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Coccinelle , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH with Coccinelle?] Deletion of unnecessary checks before specific function calls References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:JEMf+9QYF0QBwSC9cZc0kmG9hhooVhqKIpcQWHkIA2p7Ey2Of+a xLUWmDLj4bCDdy7bDCa3xYvu5zf9hNoYJPEdzv5S8UMMZ7fsilA6SWLO0gpZIeWieE8Xppm wXuumuv+0PCpEJZHsmn3mL+wG8Eowbwb2dF89kcgzzVrLwwrzCQaHXzUkOmm6UZTnO+M2Sn nbwW77KGM+nW9Vh4MawYQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > If you are convinced that dropping the null tests is a good idea, then you > can submit the patch that makes the change to the relevant maintainers and > mailing lists. Hello, A couple of functions perform input parameter validation before their implementations will try further actions with side effects. Some calling functions perform similar safety checks. Functions which release a system resource are often documented in the way that they tolerate the passing of a null pointer for example. I do not see a need because of this fact that a function caller repeats a corresponding check. Now I would like to propose such a change again. 1. Extension of the infrastructure for the analysis tool "coccicheck" Semantic patch patterns can help to identify update candidates also in the Linux source file hierarchy. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle?id=79f0345fefaafb7cde301a830471edd21a37989b 2. Clarification for some automated update suggestions My source code search approach found seventy functions at least which might need another review and corresponding corrections for Linux 3.14-rc5. Further software development will point out even more potentially open issues. Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 22:30:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH with Coccinelle?] Deletion of unnecessary checks before specific function calls Message-Id: <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > If you are convinced that dropping the null tests is a good idea, then you > can submit the patch that makes the change to the relevant maintainers and > mailing lists. Hello, A couple of functions perform input parameter validation before their implementations will try further actions with side effects. Some calling functions perform similar safety checks. Functions which release a system resource are often documented in the way that they tolerate the passing of a null pointer for example. I do not see a need because of this fact that a function caller repeats a corresponding check. Now I would like to propose such a change again. 1. Extension of the infrastructure for the analysis tool "coccicheck" Semantic patch patterns can help to identify update candidates also in the Linux source file hierarchy. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle?idyf0345fefaafb7cde301a830471edd21a37989b 2. Clarification for some automated update suggestions My source code search approach found seventy functions at least which might need another review and corresponding corrections for Linux 3.14-rc5. Further software development will point out even more potentially open issues. Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:30:53 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH with Coccinelle?] Deletion of unnecessary checks before specific function calls In-Reply-To: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> Message-ID: <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > If you are convinced that dropping the null tests is a good idea, then you > can submit the patch that makes the change to the relevant maintainers and > mailing lists. Hello, A couple of functions perform input parameter validation before their implementations will try further actions with side effects. Some calling functions perform similar safety checks. Functions which release a system resource are often documented in the way that they tolerate the passing of a null pointer for example. I do not see a need because of this fact that a function caller repeats a corresponding check. Now I would like to propose such a change again. 1. Extension of the infrastructure for the analysis tool "coccicheck" Semantic patch patterns can help to identify update candidates also in the Linux source file hierarchy. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle?id=79f0345fefaafb7cde301a830471edd21a37989b 2. Clarification for some automated update suggestions My source code search approach found seventy functions at least which might need another review and corresponding corrections for Linux 3.14-rc5. Further software development will point out even more potentially open issues. Regards, Markus