Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] coccinelle: api: add selfcheck for memdup_user rule

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] coccinelle: api: add selfcheck for memdup_user rule

[Markus Elfring]

> Check that the rule matches vmemdup_user implementation.
> memdup_user is out of scope because we are not matching
> kmalloc_track_caller() function.

I find this change description improvable.
Will it become helpful (for example) to mention that you would like to
add another operation mode?


> +@finalize:python depends on selfcheck@
> +filtered << merge.filtered;
> +checked_files << merge.checked_files;
> +@@

Are we looking for better software documentation for such functionality?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] coccinelle: api: add selfcheck for memdup_user rule

[Markus Elfring]

…
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci
> @@ -14,13 +14,24 @@ virtual patch
>  virtual context
>  virtual org
>  virtual report
> +virtual selfcheck

Would you like to avoid the repetition of a SmPL key word here?

+virtual patch, context, org, report, selfcheck


> @@ -117,3 +128,34 @@ p << rv.p;
>  @@
>
>  coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], "WARNING opportunity for vmemdup_user")
> +
> +@script:python depends on selfcheck@
> +@@
> +coccinelle.checked_files |= set(definitions.values()) & set(cocci.files())

I suggest to reconsider the usage of the function “cocci.files()”.
Can such a script rule determine for which file it should perform data processing?


> +            print('SELF-CHECK: the pattern no longer matches ' \
> +		  'definitions {} in file {}'.format(not_found, efile))

Can the following code variant be a bit nicer?

+            sys.stdout.write('SELF-CHECK: The pattern does not match definitions {} in file {} any more.\n' \
+                             .format(not_found, efile))


Regards,
Markus