Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc_coherent()

Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc_coherent()

[Markus Elfring]

> Commit dfd32cad146e ("dma-mapping: remove dma_zalloc_coherent()"), in
> removing dma_zalloc_coherent() treewide, inadvertently removed the patch
> rule for dma_alloc_coherent(), leaving Coccinelle unable to auto-generate
> patches for this case. Fix this.

I suggest to reconsider also the distribution of recipients for your patch
according to the fields “Cc” and “To”.

Will the software development attention grow in a way so that further
implementation details can be adjusted also for the mentioned SmPL script?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc_coherent()

[Alex Dewar]

On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 09:06:46AM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Commit dfd32cad146e ("dma-mapping: remove dma_zalloc_coherent()"), in
> > removing dma_zalloc_coherent() treewide, inadvertently removed the patch
> > rule for dma_alloc_coherent(), leaving Coccinelle unable to auto-generate
> > patches for this case. Fix this.
>
> I suggest to reconsider also the distribution of recipients for your patch
> according to the fields “Cc” and “To”.

Good point.

>
> Will the software development attention grow in a way so that further
> implementation details can be adjusted also for the mentioned SmPL script?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you mind clarifying?

Best,
Alex

>
> Regards,
> Markus

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc_coherent()

[Markus Elfring]

>> Will the software development attention grow in a way so that further
>> implementation details can be adjusted also for the mentioned SmPL script?
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you mind clarifying?

You would like to a change a file for which some software development
discussions happened a while ago.
Do you get any further ideas from available information in message archives?

Julia Lawall (and me) pointed special development concerns out.

Example:
Code duplications in SmPL disjunctions
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/alpine.DEB.2.21.2004062115000.10239@hadrien/
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2020-April/007099.html

Regards,
Markus

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc_coherent()

[Alex Dewar]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 07:10:46PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Will the software development attention grow in a way so that further
> >> implementation details can be adjusted also for the mentioned SmPL script?
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you mind clarifying?
>
> You would like to a change a file for which some software development
> discussions happened a while ago.
> Do you get any further ideas from available information in message archives?

Hi Markus,

What should I be looking for in the archives? I've referenced what I
think is the relevant commit here.

>
> Julia Lawall (and me) pointed special development concerns out.
>
> Example:
> Code duplications in SmPL disjunctions
> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/alpine.DEB.2.21.2004062115000.10239@hadrien/
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2020-April/007099.html

I have replied to these messages now.

Best,
Alex

>
> Regards,
> Markus

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc_coherent()

[Markus Elfring]

> What should I be looking for in the archives?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci?id=dfd32cad146e3624970eee9329e99d2c6ef751b3

Several software development discussions might be interesting
also before the change “dma-mapping: remove dma_zalloc_coherent()”.


> I've referenced what I think is the relevant commit here.

How do you think about the extend the software development background
another bit?


> I have replied to these messages now.

Do you refer to your response from 2020-04-07?
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2020-April/007102.html
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/20200407155005.rdyiu7xqss57rzhq@lenovo-laptop/

* You proposed a change for this SmPL script which contains programming mistakes.

* Would you like to achieve the restore of a SmPL code variant
  from a published patch hunk instead?

* Will the software development attention grow also around the recurring topic
  “Code duplications in SmPL disjunctions”?

Regards,
Markus