From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932863AbcFOQqu (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:46:50 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42852 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932121AbcFOQqt (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:46:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 18:46:47 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Julia Lawall Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Gilles Muller , nicolas.palix@imag.fr, mmarek@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/coccinelle: require coccinelle >= 1.0.4 on device_node_continue.cocci Message-ID: <20160615164646.GT11948@wotan.suse.de> References: <1465942217-14452-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <1465942217-14452-5-git-send-email-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20160615154918.GN11948@wotan.suse.de> <20160615160810.GR11948@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:11:57PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:55:34PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:43:30AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > How about the following, since Coccinelle knows what its version is? > > > > > This could of course be implemented in python as well. > > > > > > > > > > julia > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/docs/Coccilib.3cocci b/docs/Coccilib.3cocci > > > > > index 0e4fbb8..ca5b061 100644 > > > > > --- a/docs/Coccilib.3cocci > > > > > +++ b/docs/Coccilib.3cocci > > > > > @@ -232,6 +232,15 @@ is the empty list if spatch is not currently working on any file (eg, > > > > > in an initialize or finalize rule). > > > > > .sp > > > > > > > > > > +.I val cocci_version > > > > > +: > > > > > +.B unit -> string > > > > > +.sp > > > > > +Returns the a string indicating the current version. Note that if > > > > > +Coccinelle has been modified since a release, the version number will be > > > > > +postfixed with "-dirty". > > > > > +.sp > > > > > + > > > > > .I val print_main > > > > > : > > > > > .B ?color:string -> string -> pos list -> unit > > > > > diff --git a/ocaml/coccilib.ml b/ocaml/coccilib.ml > > > > > index f60c6b2..2f352d8 100644 > > > > > --- a/ocaml/coccilib.ml > > > > > +++ b/ocaml/coccilib.ml > > > > > @@ -168,6 +168,8 @@ let dir () = !Flag.dir > > > > > > > > > > let files () = !Flag.currentfiles > > > > > > > > > > +let cocci_version () = Config.version > > > > > + > > > > > (* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *) > > > > > (* org mode *) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anything to *only* get the version instead of a long list is nice, right now > > > > spatch --version spits out: > > > > > > > > spatch version 1.0.5 compiled with OCaml version 4.02.3 > > > > Flags passed to the configure script: [none] > > > > Python scripting support: yes > > > > Syntax of regular expresssions: PCRE > > > > > > > > The Python library just parses the 3rd item at the top so it can extract > > > > the version. But surely if spatch --version-only was available we'd use > > > > that instead a well. > > > > > > > > Other than this though how can we require coccinelle version checks per > > > > SmPL file cleanly and also what should we do to make it backward compatible > > > > with older versions of coccinelle? > > > > > > I'm not sure that being backward compatible with older versions of > > > Coccinelle is worth adding new libraries to the Linux kernel, and adding > > > unpleasant python code to semantic patches. > > > > True. I'm more than happy to not have to add this crap. > > > > > The above ocaml code just produces eg 1.0.5 or 1.0.5-dirty. I could drop > > > the -dirty at the coccilib level, if that seems desirable. > > > > This is when spatch --cocci_version is passed ? > > Perhaps it wasn't clear enough from the above nroff and ocaml code. I > added a function Coccilib.version() that returns eg either 1.0.5 or > 1.0.5-dirty. Such a function could be implemented for python as well. > > > > > Its still unclear how we can require in a clean way coccinelle version > > requirements in SmPL patches with this. Can you clarify? > > Test the string that it returns and exit. Like you are doing, but no need > for adding new libraries to the kernel. Ah then that's indeed welcome, however another function would be best too: Coccilib.version_reqs() which lets us say what the requirement is and it would return true or false, false when the req is not met. > > If we embrace this or assume we'll get this in the next release we'll have > > to just bump the kernel's coccinelle requirement recommendation, which I think > > is far due anyway. > > Yes. Great. Then I'm all for dropping this python jüjü crap. Luis