From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 10:48:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration of redundant dev_err() calls Message-Id: <0b48a5c5-0814-6414-39ba-beb1b8b5253a@metux.net> List-Id: References: <05d85182-7ec3-8fc1-4bcd-fd2528de3a40@web.de> <2744a3fc-9e67-8113-1dd9-43669e06386a@web.de> In-Reply-To: <2744a3fc-9e67-8113-1dd9-43669e06386a@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Markus Elfring , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Gilles Muller , Julia Lawall , Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Nicolas Palix Cc: Ding Xiang , Coccinelle , LKML On 01.07.19 10:10, Markus Elfring wrote: Hi folks, > +@script:python to_do depends on org@ > +p << or.p; > +@@ > +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], > + "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.") > + > +@script:python reporting depends on report@ > +p << or.p; > +@@ > +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], > + "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.") > -- By the way: do we have any mechanism for explicitly suppressing individual warnings (some kind of annotation), when the maintainer is sure that some particular case is a false-positive ? (I'm thinking of something similar to certain #praga directives for explicitly ignoring invididual warnings in specific lines of code) I believe such a feature, so we don't get spammed with the same false positives again and again. --mtx -- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287