linux-kernel - Re: coccinelle: api: add device_attr

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: <6ce5346f-127d-e2fd-c703-9adf21060e30@web.de>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:27:50 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script

>> +virtual report, org, context, patch
>>
>> Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
>
> This doens't matter.

Can less duplicate code be a bit nicer?


>>> +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> +	<...
>>> +*	return snprintf@p(...);
>>> +	...>
>>> +}
>>
>> I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783
>>
>> Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?
>
> <... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what
> is inside the <... ...>

I propose once more to distinguish better if the shown return statement
may be really treated as optional for such a source code search approach
(or not).

Regards,
Markus