From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:31:42 +0200 Subject: [Cocci] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script In-Reply-To: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF489CB@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1502884342-10702-2-git-send-email-elena.reshetova@intel.com> <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612B6FF489CB@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr >> Why do you insist to use the variables ?fname2? till ?fname6? in >> this evolving SmPL script (instead of merging them into a single one >> with a special constraint)? > > I am pretty new to Coccinelle This is fine. I am curious then how your interests will evolve further in this software area. > and Julia has recommended against this approach, She showed a special response. If you search in the mailing list archive, you will find some details where she had different opinions than me for some technical aspects during usual discussions. > so I was merely following her advice. Not completely. - You expressed a need to use regular expressions for constraints in the SmPL rule ?r1? already. I suggest to take another look at available design choices. Under which circumstances will it be helpful to switch between involved programming languages? > I really do not understand the implications of the change as well > as she does. My software understanding is also still evolving in this area. * Some clarification approaches did not reach the point so that missing information could be resolved in a desired way. * Some knowledge did not find their way from research papers and corresponding OCaml source code into other documentation formats for a better understanding of system dependencies so far. > Your approach would certainly look prettier script-wise, Thanks for such a feedback. > but I don't want to cause any undesirable side-effects. You would like to implement a special search (and transformation) pattern. * Are you keen to find the ?effects? out which are really desirable for you? * Would you try any precise system tests out for the determination of preferred run time behaviour? >> How do you think about to omit the cover letter for the addition >> of such a script (when the change log can be integrated into >> the same message for your update suggestion)? > > Sorry, not sure I understood this. Could you please explain more? You replied with the message ?[PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script? (from ?Aug 16 13:52:22 CEST 2017?) to your own message ?[PATCH v3] provide rule for finding refcounters? (from ?Aug 16 13:52:21 CEST 2017?), didn't you? https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-August/004333.html https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2017-August/004334.html Will it be sufficient to send only SmPL script variants for further clarification to achieve the desired consensus? How do you think about to reconsider another implementation detail? Example: Why do you see a need to enclose the identifier ?a? by parentheses? Regards, Markus