[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <567F141C.8010000@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:26:36 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: api: check for propagation of error from
platform_get_irq
On 12/26/2015 11:58 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> The error return value of platform_get_irq seems to often get dropped.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>
>
> ---
>
> v2: Check for the direct return case also. Added some mailing lists of
> common offenders.
>
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_get_irq_return.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_get_irq_return.cocci
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..44680d0
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_get_irq_return.cocci
> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> +/// Propagate the return value of platform_get_irq.
> +//# Sometimes the return value of platform_get_irq is tested using <= 0, but 0
> +//# might not be an appropriate return value in an error case.
> +///
> +// Confidence: Moderate
> +// Copyright: (C) 2015 Julia Lawall, Inria. GPLv2.
> +// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/
> +// Options: --no-includes --include-headers
> +
> +virtual context
> +virtual org
> +virtual report
> +
> +// ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +@r depends on context || org || report@
> +constant C;
> +statement S;
> +expression e, ret;
> +position j0, j1;
> +@@
> +
> +* e@j0 = platform_get_irq(...);
> +(
> +if@j1 (...) {
> + ...
> + return -C;
> +} else S
> +|
> +if@j1 (...) {
> + ...
> + ret = -C;
> + ...
> + return ret;
> +} else S
Well, this seems to also cover the (e <= 0) checks which do make same
sense in the light of Linus considering IRQ0 invalid. So I'd be more specific
about the checks here -- 0 should indeed be overridden with something if it's
considered invalid.
MBR, Sergei
--
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