On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:27 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> dput() also checks for NULL argument, but the check is wrapped into
>> unlikely(), which is why I presume it wasn't picked up. It would be
>> great if you could improve your coccinelle script to handle
>> {un,}likely() as well.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
>
> Should I consider any more fine-tuning for the affected script
> "list_input_parameter_validation1.cocci" in the near future?
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/362
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3514
Make sure it at least catches stuff like:
{
if (input) {
}
}
{
if (likely(input)) {
}
}
{
if (!input)
return;
...
}
{
if (unlikely(!input))
return;
...
}
And of course each match then has to be validated manually.
>
>
>>> @@ -590,15 +589,13 @@ static void queue_realm_cap_snaps(struct
>>> ceph_snap_realm
>>> *realm)
>>
>> The patch was corrupted, that should have been a single line. I fixed
>> it up but you may want to look into your email client settings.
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> Does this example show a conflict between long comments after patch ranges and
> line length limitation for email eventually?
There is no line length limitation for email, at least one that would
be relevant here. Patches should be sent verbatim, no line wrapping,
expandtab, etc or they won't apply. I'd recommend git-send-email, but
if you want to make thunderbird work for patches (which is what you
seem to be using) have a look at the "Thunderbird (GUI)" section of
Documentation/email-clients.txt in the kernel tree.
Thanks,
Ilya
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
