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,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 6C69BC33C8C for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 10:41:27 +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 EC505207FD for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 10:41:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EC505207FD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass 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 005Af2QQ002771; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:41:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CC17718; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:41:02 +0100 (CET) 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 2722E73E2 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:41:01 +0100 (CET) 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 005Af0JF014099 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:41:00 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,398,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="429930408" Received: from abo-154-110-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.110.154]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2020 11:41:00 +0100 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:41:00 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: <21e9861a-5afc-fd66-cfd1-a9b5b92b230b@web.de> Message-ID: References: <20200104064448.24314-1-wenyang@linux.alibaba.com> <21e9861a-5afc-fd66-cfd1-a9b5b92b230b@web.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-2099431970-1578220860=:2579" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Sun, 05 Jan 2020 11:41:02 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Sun, 05 Jan 2020 11:41:00 +0100 (CET) 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 , Wen Yang , Gilles Muller , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Nicolas Palix , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Matthias_M=E4nnich?= , Julia Lawall , Thomas Gleixner , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate do_div() calls 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: , Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-2099431970-1578220860=:2579 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > +virtual context > > +virtual org > > +virtual report > > The operation mode “patch” is not supported here. > Should the term “semantic code search” be used instead in the subject again? Doesn't matter, > > > > +@@ > > +( > > +* do_div(f, l); > > +| > > +* do_div(f, ul); > > +| > > +* do_div(f, ul64); > > +| > > +* do_div(f, sl64); > > +) > > I suggest to avoid the specification of duplicate SmPL code. > > +@@ > +*do_div(f, \( l \| ul \| ul64 \| sl64 \) ); I don't se any point to this. The code matched will be the same in both cases. The original code is quite readable, without the ugly \( etc. > > Will any more case distinctions become helpful? > > > > +@script:python depends on report@ > > +p << r.p; > > +@@ > > + > > +msg="WARNING: WARNING: do_div() does a 64-by-32 division, which may truncation the divisor to 32-bit" > > +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg) > > Please improve the message construction. Please make more precise comments (I already made some suggestions, so it doesn't matter much here, but "please improve" does not provide any concrete guidance). julia --8323329-2099431970-1578220860=:2579 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci --8323329-2099431970-1578220860=:2579--