From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:43:06 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-34029661-1592235787=:23306" List-Id: References: <1f028ee6-b014-c240-21d8-0c1950334fe6@web.de> In-Reply-To: <1f028ee6-b014-c240-21d8-0c1950334fe6@web.de> To: Markus Elfring Cc: Michal Marek , Gilles Muller , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Palix , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Coccinelle This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-34029661-1592235787=:23306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > > +// Confidence: High > > Would you like to add any suggestion for a possible patch message? > > > … > > +virtual report > > +virtual org > > +virtual context > > +virtual patch > > +virtual report, org, context, patch > > Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct? This doens't matter. > > > … > > +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > > +{ > > + <... > > +* return snprintf@p(...); > > + ...> > > +} > > I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct. > https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783 > > Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here? <... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what is inside the <... ...> julia > > > Would you like to consider any further software design consequences > around the safe application of the asterisk functionality in rules > for the semantic patch language? > > Regards, > Markus > --8323329-34029661-1592235787=:23306--