linux-kernel - Re: [2/4] coccinelle: platform_get_irq: handle 2-statement branches

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5de8c4b9-2537-283d-4ef0-49fb22c18fe6@web.de>
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:38:33 +0100
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...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>
Subject: Re: [2/4] coccinelle: platform_get_irq: handle 2-statement branches

> Sorry, I seem to have done something quite wrong on this patch.

Interesting …


> I will fix it.

Thanks.

Development will be continued:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/19/1681
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1156089/
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/1574197705-31132-3-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr/


>> How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variant?
>
> And the benefit is what?
…
>> + ret =
>> +(platform_get_irq
>> +|platform_get_irq_byname
>> +)(E, ...);
>> +
>> + if ( \( ret < 0 \| ret <= 0 \) )
>> +-{
>> +-dev_err(...);
>> + S
>> +-}

* I suggest to use a different coding style for the specification of
  two function names in the SmPL disjunction.

* Would you like to avoid the mixing of code items in the first text column?

Regards,
Markus