[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <567F166B.7030208@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:36:27 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: 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,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: api: check for propagation of error from
platform_get_irq
On 12/27/2015 01:32 AM, 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.
>
> That's what the limitations section says (lines with #). This doesn't
Ah, failed to notice those, only saw after replying.
> make any changes, it only makes warnings, which should include the
> limitations information, so perhaps people can consider what it is that
> they really intend to do.
>
> If you think this is not a good idea, then I can make the test more
> specific.
Well, looking again, the patch should be good. I just thought its goal was
to fix the code as well...
> julia
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