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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:22:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> cc: Himangi Saraogi <himangi774@...il.com>, Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benoit.taine@...6.fr Subject: Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: Script to drop parenthesis in the return statements On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 18:49 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 21:59 +0530, Himangi Saraogi wrote: > > > > This script detects the use of a parenthesis around return value ot the > > > > return statements and removes them as they are unnecessary and against > > > > the CodingStyle. A new directory called checkpatch is added for semantic > > > > patches that just make patches for what checkpatch does. This will help > > > > developers having checkpatch problems, to run the semantic patches in this > > > > directory on their code and fix some of them automatically. > > > > > > checkpatch already has --fix and --fix-inplace options that > > > do something similar. > > > > OK. Then it is not worth adding coccinelle scripts for simple changes > > like this one. > > > > I guess that some of the more complex changes, like choosing an > > appropriate error message function, checkpatch does not do? > > I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. > > You mean choosing pr_err vs pr_notice or something > like finding an active struct <foo> and converting > printks to <foo>_<level>(&foo, fmt, ...) > > from: > { > struct device *dev; > ... > printk(KERN_ERR "msg", ...) > to: > dev_err(dev, "msg", ...) > > checkpatch definitely can not do that. > > Is it something else? Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Anyway, we can just test whether checkpatch --fix can d the change before proposing a semantic patch for it. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists