On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> Hello,
> I came during my software development activities along a few Linux source 
> files
> where I got an advice by the script "checkpatch.pl" like the following.
> WARNING: Prefer seq_puts to seq_printf
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/checkpatch.pl?id=29fbff8698fc0ac1a1d74584b258e0bf18b469f9#n5610
> Joe Perches pointed out that the function "seq_putc" would be more appropriate
> at a specific source code place.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9364455/
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<1475771699.1914.10.ca...@perches.com>
> Now I am curious on how good the semantic patch language is applicable
> for advanced source code transformations in similar use cases.
> With which metavariables and corresponding programming interfaces can strings 
> that
> are passed to such functions be checked in more detail by the Coccinelle 
> software?

The simplest would be to use python or ocaml code to make the checks that
are needed.  You can use cocci.include_match(False) in python or
Coccilib.include_match false in ocaml when your test detects that
something is not suitable.  coccinelle/demos/first.cocci may be helpful.

Cocci mailing list

Reply via email to