linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: if (ret) return ret; return ret; semantic patch

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1106151735020.10106@ask.diku.dk>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:35:47 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To:	Greg Dietsche <greg@...mergreg.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...u.dk, Gilles.Muller@...6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: if (ret) return ret; return
 ret; semantic patch

> except that 4 of the 5 ORs are cases where we want to do the -return ret; +
> return ret; So I suppose for performance, I should actually add the +/- to
> each of the 4 cases that we want cocci to generate a patch for?

Actually, it's probably not that big a deal.  It's only rewriting the ones 
where there is a return ret just before, not all the returns in the code, 
like I was originally thinking.

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/