[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqfa6CMcsjuOQ_QRRK7kGwkFPCVvrS44rk3Xf1S2HFPTow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:00:54 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] drop if around WARN_ON
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> Hi Julia,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
>>> then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which
>>> will test the condition.
>>>
>>> // <smpl>
>>> @@
>>> expression e;
>>> @@
>>>
>>> (
>>> if(<+...e(...)...+>) WARN_ON(1);
>>> |
>>> - if (e) WARN_ON(1);
>>> + WARN_ON(e);
>>> )// </smpl>
>>
>>
>> So this deals with WARN_ON(), are you considering doing the same for
>> the rest of it's friends?
>
>
> I tried WARN_ON_ONCE, but the pattern never occurred. Are there others that
> are worth trying?
Definitely!
Here's the semantic patch I've got:
@@
expression e;
@@
(
- if (e) WARN_ON(1);
+ WARN_ON(e);
|
- if (e) WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(e);
|
- if (e) WARN_ON_SMP(1);
+ WARN_ON_SMP(e);
|
- if (e) BUG();
+ BUG_ON(e);
)
This gave me a really huge patch output.
I can send it out if you think the patch above looks good.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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