From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752227AbaKCN1R (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 08:27:17 -0500 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:61503 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751460AbaKCN1O (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 08:27:14 -0500 Message-ID: <545782AA.5080408@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:27:06 +0100 From: SF Markus Elfring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ilya Dryomov CC: Sage Weil , Ceph Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle , "Yan, Zheng" Subject: Re: ceph: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two 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> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54563DCB.2010103@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ZQ+eMP1vPBlDRHc47d1nQL6BnY1Qm08UgUcioKDm3Aw9Ab19tPh SRN9E6obZNM1ZhGFbwXgpQNXX7QvZDmo4HDndGz2Vhv/Y+X3CnyiDUoKmHmdRXpWLnq+Y4c cPcA+n5nb2I/1FbIkvVonGqbp2cATZcUsjaWlnn+VoDO7qvgIqzTWa74tIwma+X5u0MDCR1 /ryWjm1/rtsqKEWmwManA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > dput() also checks for NULL argument, but the check is wrapped into > unlikely(), which is why I presume it wasn't picked up. It would be > great if you could improve your coccinelle script to handle > {un,}likely() as well. Thanks for your suggestion. Should I consider any more fine-tuning for the affected script "list_input_parameter_validation1.cocci" in the near future? https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/362 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3514 >> @@ -590,15 +589,13 @@ static void queue_realm_cap_snaps(struct ceph_snap_realm >> *realm) > > The patch was corrupted, that should have been a single line. I fixed > it up but you may want to look into your email client settings. Thanks for your feedback. Does this example show a conflict between long comments after patch ranges and line length limitation for email eventually? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:27:06 +0000 Subject: Re: ceph: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls Message-Id: <545782AA.5080408@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> <5317A59D.4@users.so urceforge.net> <54563DCB.2010103@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ilya Dryomov Cc: Sage Weil , Ceph Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle , "Yan, Zheng" > dput() also checks for NULL argument, but the check is wrapped into > unlikely(), which is why I presume it wasn't picked up. It would be > great if you could improve your coccinelle script to handle > {un,}likely() as well. Thanks for your suggestion. Should I consider any more fine-tuning for the affected script "list_input_parameter_validation1.cocci" in the near future? https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/362 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3514 >> @@ -590,15 +589,13 @@ static void queue_realm_cap_snaps(struct ceph_snap_realm >> *realm) > > The patch was corrupted, that should have been a single line. I fixed > it up but you may want to look into your email client settings. Thanks for your feedback. Does this example show a conflict between long comments after patch ranges and line length limitation for email eventually? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: ceph: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two function calls Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:27:06 +0100 Message-ID: <545782AA.5080408@users.sourceforge.net> 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> <5317A59D.4@users.so urceforge.net> <54563DCB.2010103@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ilya Dryomov Cc: Sage Weil , Ceph Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, trivial@kernel.org, Coccinelle , "Yan, Zheng" List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org > dput() also checks for NULL argument, but the check is wrapped into > unlikely(), which is why I presume it wasn't picked up. It would be > great if you could improve your coccinelle script to handle > {un,}likely() as well. Thanks for your suggestion. Should I consider any more fine-tuning for the affected script "list_input_parameter_validation1.cocci" in the near future? https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/362 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3514 >> @@ -590,15 +589,13 @@ static void queue_realm_cap_snaps(struct ceph_snap_realm >> *realm) > > The patch was corrupted, that should have been a single line. I fixed > it up but you may want to look into your email client settings. Thanks for your feedback. Does this example show a conflict between long comments after patch ranges and line length limitation for email eventually? Regards, Markus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:27:06 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] ceph: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two 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> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <54563DCB.2010103@users.sourceforge.net> Message-ID: <545782AA.5080408@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > dput() also checks for NULL argument, but the check is wrapped into > unlikely(), which is why I presume it wasn't picked up. It would be > great if you could improve your coccinelle script to handle > {un,}likely() as well. Thanks for your suggestion. Should I consider any more fine-tuning for the affected script "list_input_parameter_validation1.cocci" in the near future? https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/362 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3514 >> @@ -590,15 +589,13 @@ static void queue_realm_cap_snaps(struct ceph_snap_realm >> *realm) > > The patch was corrupted, that should have been a single line. I fixed > it up but you may want to look into your email client settings. Thanks for your feedback. Does this example show a conflict between long comments after patch ranges and line length limitation for email eventually? Regards, Markus