Re: [PATCH] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage

From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 17:30:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e87c12f2-40ab-69b7-2f55-f1fcc980e784@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com>

> +(
> +* !likely(E)
> +|
> +* !unlikely(E)
> +)

Can the following code variant be nicer?

+*! \( likely \| unlikely \) (E)

> +(
> +-!likely(E)
> ++unlikely(E)
> +|
> +-!unlikely(E)
> ++likely(E)
> +)

I would find the following SmPL change specification more succinct.

+(
+-!likely
++unlikely
+|
+-!unlikely
++likely
+)(E)

> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], "WARNING use unlikely instead of !likely")
…
> +msg="WARNING: Use unlikely instead of !likely"
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)

1. I find such a message construction nicer without the extra variable “msg”.

2. I recommend to make the provided information unique.
   * How do you think about to split the SmPL disjunction in the rule “r”
     for this purpose?

   * Should the transformation become clearer?

Regards,
Markus