All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Gilles Muller" <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Julia Lawall" <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
	"Masahiro Yamada" <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	"Matthias Männich" <maennich@google.com>,
	"Michal Marek" <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	"Nicolas Palix" <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate do_div() calls
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:00:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6e7b8ac-4de8-00a0-d12c-ebf727af3e26@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200107170240.47207-1-wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>

> +@initialize:python@
> +def construct_warnings(str, suggested_fun):

This function will be used only for the operation modes “org” and “report”.
Thus I suggest to replace the specification “initialize” by a corresponding dependency
which is already applied for the SmPL rule “r”.


Can subsequent SmPL disjunctions become more succinct?


The passing of function name variants contains a bit of duplicate Python code.
Will a feature request like “Support for SmPL rule groups” become more interesting
for the shown use case?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/164

Regards,
Markus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Michal Marek" <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	"Julia Lawall" <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Nicolas Palix" <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	"Gilles Muller" <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	"Matthias Männich" <maennich@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate do_div() calls
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:00:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6e7b8ac-4de8-00a0-d12c-ebf727af3e26@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200107170240.47207-1-wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>

> +@initialize:python@
> +def construct_warnings(str, suggested_fun):

This function will be used only for the operation modes “org” and “report”.
Thus I suggest to replace the specification “initialize” by a corresponding dependency
which is already applied for the SmPL rule “r”.


Can subsequent SmPL disjunctions become more succinct?


The passing of function name variants contains a bit of duplicate Python code.
Will a feature request like “Support for SmPL rule groups” become more interesting
for the shown use case?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/164

Regards,
Markus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Michal Marek" <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	"Julia Lawall" <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Nicolas Palix" <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	"Gilles Muller" <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	"Matthias Männich" <maennich@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate do_div() calls
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:00:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6e7b8ac-4de8-00a0-d12c-ebf727af3e26@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200107170240.47207-1-wenyang@linux.alibaba.com>

> +@initialize:python@
> +def construct_warnings(str, suggested_fun):

This function will be used only for the operation modes “org” and “report”.
Thus I suggest to replace the specification “initialize” by a corresponding dependency
which is already applied for the SmPL rule “r”.


Can subsequent SmPL disjunctions become more succinct?


The passing of function name variants contains a bit of duplicate Python code.
Will a feature request like “Support for SmPL rule groups” become more interesting
for the shown use case?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/164

Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-01-10 10:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-07 17:02 [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate do_div() calls Wen Yang
2020-01-07 17:02 ` [Cocci] " Wen Yang
2020-01-07 17:25 ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-07 17:25   ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-01-10 13:11   ` Wen Yang
2020-01-10 13:11     ` [Cocci] " Wen Yang
2020-01-09 10:35 ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 10:35   ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 10:35   ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 10:41   ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 10:41     ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 10:41     ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:00     ` [v2] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:00       ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:00       ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:04       ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:04         ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:04         ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:14         ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:14           ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:14           ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:17           ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:17             ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:17             ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-09 12:21             ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:21               ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-09 12:21               ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-10 10:00 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2020-01-10 10:00   ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-10 10:00   ` Markus Elfring
2020-01-10 12:34   ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-10 12:34     ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-01-10 12:34     ` Julia Lawall
2020-01-10 15:46     ` [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search " Markus Elfring
2020-01-10 15:46       ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2020-01-10 15:46       ` Markus Elfring

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b6e7b8ac-4de8-00a0-d12c-ebf727af3e26@web.de \
    --to=markus.elfring@web.de \
    --cc=Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr \
    --cc=Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr \
    --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maennich@google.com \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wenyang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.