From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@redhat.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:30:16 +0200
Message-ID: <c98b8f50-1adf-ea95-a91c-ec451e9fefe2@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190723181624.203864-4-swboyd@chromium.org>
I would prefer to concentrate the usage of SmPL disjunctions on changing
implementation details so that the specification of duplicate code
can be avoided.
> +(
> +platform_get_irq(E, ...)
> +|
> +platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...)
> +);
Function names:
+(platform_get_irq
+|platform_get_irq_byname
+)(E, ...);
> +if ( \( ret < 0 \| ret <= 0 \) )
Comparison operators:
+if (ret \( < \| <= \) 0)
> +if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
Is it appropriate to treat this error code check as optional
by the shown transformation approach?
Can this case distinction be omitted?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
next prev parent reply index
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-23 18:16 [Cocci] [PATCH v4 0/3] Add error message to platform_get_irq*() Stephen Boyd
2019-07-23 18:16 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints Stephen Boyd
2019-07-24 9:30 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-07-24 18:21 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-07-24 18:38 ` [Cocci] [v4 " Markus Elfring
2019-07-24 13:18 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v4 " Markus Elfring
2019-07-24 18:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-07-24 18:45 ` [Cocci] [v4 " 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=c98b8f50-1adf-ea95-a91c-ec451e9fefe2@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=a.hajda@samsung.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=javierm@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
--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
Coccinelle Archive on lore.kernel.org
Archives are clonable:
git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/0 cocci/git/0.git
# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
public-inbox-init -V2 cocci cocci/ https://lore.kernel.org/cocci \
cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
public-inbox-index cocci
Example config snippet for mirrors
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/fr.lip6.systeme.cocci
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git