From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65890C76186 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3951421841 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="IWAnfb2u" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387433AbfGXSV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:21:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f170.google.com ([209.85.214.170]:43799 "EHLO mail-pl1-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726810AbfGXSV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:21:57 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f170.google.com with SMTP id 4so15332754pld.10 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:21:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :references:subject:to:cc:from:user-agent:date; bh=STM42I/99+hliAUzw485JNYg3BolU1kKr1GKH8Q1t9I=; b=IWAnfb2ugCtB1EBhfQSgHsGQsUEsxIqW7A7ukiDBQvQT5Me0WMINTtmbfEzCHy0wc4 I3Y6tctNtmhFT8lD70VthrwItZZw3HgLyfzMucpvqm5hEPoKxBVuOktErIXGlOUIUzsm pxk83Ri/IIHLUxYTSWGkZz2k0uoYv5nMp12tY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references:subject:to:cc:from :user-agent:date; bh=STM42I/99+hliAUzw485JNYg3BolU1kKr1GKH8Q1t9I=; b=iCg5GDKNGeRzrtNt6FbexpK1Ew5XBge+sHnhmpLPEGOciejZBTHhspZw6zgGUKo/DH nLF1GXIbu4i0sOLBAFmzwv3B9SWCTr3JzHAEgXGAxCcrIyQUAypg1OmzOLeUzVsOTHSM Y20NLdoscfclrCb/UyIwddA6ayaZVYpdDGi3D9Y26CZs8cXyp0FB/L20MHVLLVDBqCb9 BSJD4tEFRG8wqCfnx/Rlm2b7XpIoFEg1dLSQ+C1yRjf8dMOQnwY1iZ8T35Iji7PmgqQN ubOMIoMBEUbusIp22kiCst1XC0aTzpNcegPBTmzdvYmyb7LQ9zF18Iku+D04UpDiCXVT xL0w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmMgJYSKDTMuLi8kJ5eJDBcl9d2Yuuge8jBmxhyOJYQwVu1vsf y/NvnEeO5Fy6o3Nw+ds7fxFnEQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwHS2YQ0e8I05dRILy8sF+cOXkqamKTErem/TXY2mRfrUuw1ajiREW82Lm7aKcyrNj9x3L0Cg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:be03:: with SMTP id r3mr88009941pls.156.1563992516692; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chromium.org ([2620:15c:202:1:fa53:7765:582b:82b9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e6sm53313708pfn.71.2019.07.24.11.21.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d38a1c3.1c69fb81.2b26a.b585@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: References: <20190723181624.203864-4-swboyd@chromium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints To: Markus Elfring , Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Nicolas Palix , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Cc: Gilles Muller , Julia Lawall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrzej Hajda , Andy Shevchenko , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Javier Martinez Canillas , Marek Szyprowski , Mark Brown , Rob Herring , Russell King From: Stephen Boyd User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:21:54 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Markus Elfring (2019-07-24 02:30:16) > I would prefer to concentrate the usage of SmPL disjunctions on changing > implementation details so that the specification of duplicate code > can be avoided. >=20 >=20 > > +( > > +platform_get_irq(E, ...) > > +| > > +platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...) > > +); >=20 > Function names: >=20 > +(platform_get_irq > +|platform_get_irq_byname > +)(E, ...); >=20 >=20 > > +if ( \( ret < 0 \| ret <=3D 0 \) ) >=20 > Comparison operators: >=20 > +if (ret \( < \| <=3D \) 0) >=20 Thanks. Will fold the above two in. >=20 > > +if (ret !=3D -EPROBE_DEFER) >=20 > Is it appropriate to treat this error code check as optional > by the shown transformation approach? > Can this case distinction be omitted? I don't know what you mean here. Do you want me to drop this part so that EPROBE_DEFER checks don't get removed?