[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21e9861a-5afc-fd66-cfd1-a9b5b92b230b@web.de>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:33:41 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Matthias Männich <maennich@...gle.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
do_div() calls
> +virtual context
> +virtual org
> +virtual report
The operation mode “patch” is not supported here.
Should the term “semantic code search” be used instead in the subject again?
> +@@
> +(
> +* do_div(f, l);
> +|
> +* do_div(f, ul);
> +|
> +* do_div(f, ul64);
> +|
> +* do_div(f, sl64);
> +)
I suggest to avoid the specification of duplicate SmPL code.
+@@
+*do_div(f, \( l \| ul \| ul64 \| sl64 \) );
Will any more case distinctions become helpful?
> +@...ipt:python depends on report@
> +p << r.p;
> +@@
> +
> +msg="WARNING: WARNING: do_div() does a 64-by-32 division, which may truncation the divisor to 32-bit"
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)
Please improve the message construction.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists