From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
To: Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
Cc: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kvfree script
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 23:19:32 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006052318310.28300@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43cead50-05f8-67ce-c1de-ce3acefb0dec@linux.com>
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020, Denis Efremov wrote:
> On 6/5/20 11:51 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Is there a strong reason for putting the choice rule first? It may make
> > things somewhat slower than necessary, if it matches in many places,
> > because the opportunity rule will have to detect that it doesn't care
> > about all of those places.
>
> No, I didn't know that order of rules matters. I just checked it, my PC
> shows no difference in exec time if I swap these rules.
OK, probably choice doesn't match in very many places, so there is not
much impact.
julia
>
> "choice" doesn't check the size. "opportunity" is more strict.
> The motivation for adding 2 rules is that we could recommend to use
> kvmalloc* only when there is a size condition. At the same time, we
> should skip all if (...) {kmalloc()} else {vmalloc()},
> res = kmalloc() if (!res) {vmalloc()} cases as false positives.
>
> It seems that it's not possible to use subexpression rule
> "expression size <= choice.E" in this case.
>
> > Also, there is no need to exceed 80 characters here. You can put a
> > newline in the middle of a \( ... \)
>
> Ok, I will fix it in v2 after all comments/suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Denis
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-05 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-05 20:42 [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add kvfree script Denis Efremov
2020-06-05 20:51 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-06-05 21:15 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-05 21:19 ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2020-06-14 9:03 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-14 9:17 ` Julia Lawall
2020-06-14 9:24 ` Denis Efremov
2020-06-14 18:36 ` [PATCH v2] " Denis Efremov
2020-07-17 12:00 ` Denis Efremov
2020-07-30 14:01 ` [PATCH v3] " Denis Efremov
2020-07-30 14:05 ` Denis Efremov
2020-07-30 14:07 ` [PATCH v4] " Denis Efremov
2020-07-30 20:15 ` Julia Lawall
2020-07-30 20:38 ` Julia Lawall
2020-07-31 8:31 ` Denis Efremov
2020-07-31 8:48 ` Julia Lawall
2020-07-31 10:47 ` [PATCH v5] " Denis Efremov
2020-07-31 21:00 ` [PATCH v6] " Denis Efremov
2020-08-02 20:24 ` Julia Lawall
2020-08-03 11:33 ` Denis Efremov
2020-08-03 12:18 ` Julia Lawall
2020-08-03 11:45 ` Denis Efremov
2020-08-03 12:12 ` Julia Lawall
2020-08-03 18:34 ` [PATCH v7] coccinelle: api: add kfree_mismatch script Denis Efremov
2020-09-21 17:15 ` Denis Efremov
2020-10-15 20:48 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-16 8:54 ` [PATCH v8] " Denis Efremov
2020-10-17 21:17 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.21.2006052318310.28300@hadrien \
--to=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=efremov@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).