[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <675f3bc3-99f4-1780-af04-cf7de2e9059a@web.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:36:02 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
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>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] coccinelle: api: add selfcheck for memdup_user
rule
…
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci
> @@ -14,13 +14,24 @@ virtual patch
> virtual context
> virtual org
> virtual report
> +virtual selfcheck
Would you like to avoid the repetition of a SmPL key word here?
+virtual patch, context, org, report, selfcheck
> @@ -117,3 +128,34 @@ p << rv.p;
> @@
>
> coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], "WARNING opportunity for vmemdup_user")
> +
> +@...ipt:python depends on selfcheck@
> +@@
> +coccinelle.checked_files |= set(definitions.values()) & set(cocci.files())
I suggest to reconsider the usage of the function “cocci.files()”.
Can such a script rule determine for which file it should perform data processing?
> + print('SELF-CHECK: the pattern no longer matches ' \
> + 'definitions {} in file {}'.format(not_found, efile))
Can the following code variant be a bit nicer?
+ sys.stdout.write('SELF-CHECK: The pattern does not match definitions {} in file {} any more.\n' \
+ .format(not_found, efile))
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists