linux-kernel - Re: Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration of redundant dev

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1906211119430.3740@hadrien>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:21:11 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ding Xiang <dingxiang@...s.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration of redundant
 dev_err() calls



On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > I think that something like
> >
> > if (IS_ERR(e))
> > {
> > <+...
> > *dev_err(...)
> > ...+>
> > }
> >
> > would be more appropriate.  Whether there is a return or not doesn't
> > really matter.
>
> Do you find the following SmPL change specification useful and acceptable?
>
>
> @deletion depends on patch@
> expression e;
> @@
>  e = devm_ioremap_resource(...);
>  if (IS_ERR(e))
> (
> -{
> -   dev_err(...);
>     return (...);

I still don't see the point of specifying return.  Why not just S, where S
is a statement metavariable?

julia

> -}
> |{

I realize that you confuse conciseness with readability, but it would
really look better to have the | on a line by itself.

julia

>  <+...
> -   dev_err(...);
>  ...+>
>  }
> )
>
>
> Would this approach need a version check for the Coccinelle software?

Why would that be necessary?