[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6e7b8ac-4de8-00a0-d12c-ebf727af3e26@web.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 11:00:34 +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 v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
do_div() calls
> +@...tialize:python@
…
> +def construct_warnings(str, suggested_fun):
This function will be used only for the operation modes “org” and “report”.
Thus I suggest to replace the specification “initialize” by a corresponding dependency
which is already applied for the SmPL rule “r”.
Can subsequent SmPL disjunctions become more succinct?
The passing of function name variants contains a bit of duplicate Python code.
Will a feature request like “Support for SmPL rule groups” become more interesting
for the shown use case?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/164
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists