linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: Add helper functions for setting up transfers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:28:32 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>,
	linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: Add helper functions for setting up transfers

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:

> On 01/10/2013 09:53 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> +@r1@
> >> +identifier fn;
> >> +identifier xfers;
> >> +@@
> >> +fn(...)
> >> +{
> >> +	...
> >> +(
> >> +	struct spi_transfer xfers[...];
> >> +|
> >> +	struct spi_transfer xfers[];
> >> +)
> >> +	...
> >> +}
> > 
> > Can it happen that there would be more than one spi_transfer or spi_message
> > variable per function?  This semantic patch will only treat the case where
> > there is only one, because the ... before an after the variable declaration
> > won't match another declaration of the same form.
> > 
> > julia
> 
> I guess it could happen, but I would consider it to be very rare. There are
> a few examples of multiple transfers in the kernel. But most of them look like
> 
> struct spi_message msg;
> struct spi_transfer xfer_foo;
> struct spi_transfer xfer_bar;
> 
> ...
> spi_message_add_tail(&xfer_foo, &msg);
> spi_message_add_tail(&xfer_bar, &msg);
> 
> So the transformation can't be applied here anyway.
> 
> Do you have an idea how to change the rule to work with multiple
> transfers/messages per function? If it would make the cocci file more
> complex I wouldn't bother to take care of it, since it basically has no
> practical use.

Probably the simplest thing is to put when any on all of the ...s
It might get slower, though.

Alternatively you could have a rule at the end that prints a warning for 
any cases that are not transformed.

julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/