linux-kernel - Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for dma_alloc

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: <6f0fee23-2de9-d322-0e11-2a117e56cdf4@web.de>
Date:   Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:25:50 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Alex Dewar <alex.dewar@....co.uk>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Fix patch mode for
 dma_alloc_coherent()

> What should I be looking for in the archives?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci?id=dfd32cad146e3624970eee9329e99d2c6ef751b3

Several software development discussions might be interesting
also before the change “dma-mapping: remove dma_zalloc_coherent()”.

> I've referenced what I think is the relevant commit here.

How do you think about the extend the software development background
another bit?

> I have replied to these messages now.

Do you refer to your response from 2020-04-07?
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2020-April/007102.html
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/20200407155005.rdyiu7xqss57rzhq@lenovo-laptop/

* You proposed a change for this SmPL script which contains programming mistakes.

* Would you like to achieve the restore of a SmPL code variant
  from a published patch hunk instead?

* Will the software development attention grow also around the recurring topic
  “Code duplications in SmPL disjunctions”?

Regards,
Markus