[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a1491516-a701-8804-8277-75fb5247191a@web.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:28:33 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: sched: make struct task_struct::state 32-bit
>>> identifier task_state =~ "^TASK_";
>>
>> Are there a lot of options? You can also enumerate them in {}, ie
>>
>> identifier task_state = {TASK_BLAH, TASK_BLAHBLAH};
>
> Around a dozen, can be enumerated easily and is indeed probably better than
> a regexp.
Can the application of a regular expression be more convenient
for such an use case?
>> You want to look at the definitions of called functions?
>> Coccinelle doesn't really support that,
I got an other impression.
>> but there are hackish ways to add that.
How do you think about to discuss corresponding software development challenges?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists