From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,PLING_QUERY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452FFC3A59F for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB6021670 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:42:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727222AbfH3Amp (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Aug 2019 20:42:45 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:37239 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726384AbfH3Amp (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Aug 2019 20:42:45 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,445,1559512800"; d="scan'208";a="399413605" Received: from unknown (HELO hadrien) ([101.5.32.126]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2019 02:42:39 +0200 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:42:34 +0800 (CST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: julia@hadrien To: Denis Efremov cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Gilles Muller , Nicolas Palix , Michal Marek , Markus Elfring , Joe Perches , Rasmus Villemoes Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com> <20190829171013.22956-1-efremov@linux.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Aug 2019, Denis Efremov wrote: > On 8/29/19 8:10 PM, Denis Efremov wrote: > > This patch adds coccinelle script for detecting !likely and > > !unlikely usage. These notations are confusing. It's better > > to replace !likely(x) with unlikely(!x) and !unlikely(x) with > > likely(!x) for readability. > > I'm not sure that this rule deserves the acceptance. > Just to want to be sure that "!unlikely(x)" and "!likely(x)" > are hard-readable is not only my perception and that they > become more clear in form "likely(!x)" and "unlikely(!x)" too. Is likely/unlikely even useful for anything once it is a subexpression? julia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,PLING_QUERY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF171C3A59F for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C48A21726 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:43:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4C48A21726 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lip6.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x7U0gkDt023228; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:42:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFAC77791; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:42:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2268C778B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:42:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x7U0gh56010749 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:42:43 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,445,1559512800"; d="scan'208";a="399413605" Received: from unknown (HELO hadrien) ([101.5.32.126]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Aug 2019 02:42:39 +0200 Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:42:34 +0800 (CST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: julia@hadrien To: Denis Efremov In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com> <20190829171013.22956-1-efremov@linux.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:42:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 02:42:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 Cc: Michal Marek , Rasmus Villemoes , Nicolas Palix , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Markus Elfring , Joe Perches , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v2] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr On Thu, 29 Aug 2019, Denis Efremov wrote: > On 8/29/19 8:10 PM, Denis Efremov wrote: > > This patch adds coccinelle script for detecting !likely and > > !unlikely usage. These notations are confusing. It's better > > to replace !likely(x) with unlikely(!x) and !unlikely(x) with > > likely(!x) for readability. > > I'm not sure that this rule deserves the acceptance. > Just to want to be sure that "!unlikely(x)" and "!likely(x)" > are hard-readable is not only my perception and that they > become more clear in form "likely(!x)" and "unlikely(!x)" too. Is likely/unlikely even useful for anything once it is a subexpression? julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci