[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1359475998.4196.26.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:13:18 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: coccinelle and bitmask arithmetic (was: Re: [patch] TTY: synclink,
small cleanup in dtr_rts())
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 10:55 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:19:47 +0300, Dan Carpenter said:
>
> > Yeah. I think it would be, but adding bitflags together instead of
> > doing bitwise ORs is very common as well.
>
> The fact it's common doesn't mean it's good programming practice,
> or even correct. Consider:
>
> #define F_FOO 0x01
> #define F_BAR 0x02
> #define F_BAZ 0x04
>
> unsigned int flags = F_FOO;
> ...
> flags |= F_BAR;
>
> Now some time later, another code path does this:
>
> flags += F_FOO;
>
> If it was another |, it would be a no harm no foul class of bug.
> But how long is it going to take you to figure out who set F_BAZ?
>
> I wonder if there's a way to write a coccinelle patch to find places
> where we do arithmetic operations on bitmasks....
Not so far as I know, but maybe someone on the
cocci lists does. (cc'd)
I could imagine a test for variables that have
uses of both arithmetic and bit operations but
not a discriminator for when one type is
appropriate and the other is not.
--
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