From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:25:08 -0700
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:18:10 +0200 > Peter Senna Tschudin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Peter Senna Tschudin <[email protected]> >> >> Convert a nonnegative error return code to a negative one, as returned >> elsewhere in the function. >> >> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is as >> follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) >> >> // <smpl> >> ( >> if@p1 (\(ret < 0\|ret != 0\)) >> { ... return ret; } >> | >> ret@p1 = 0 >> ) >> ... when != ret = e1 >> when != &ret >> *if(...) >> { >> ... when != ret = e2 >> when forall >> return ret; >> } >> // </smpl> >> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <[email protected]> >> > > Thanks for looking into these kind of problems. The contents > of the patch are correct, but the automated commit message is useless. > You shouldn't just blindly say what the automated > script was looking for, you should describe what the bug is so that evaluators > can decide what the impact is and if it should be backported to stable > and vendor kernels. Agreed, I like seeing the checker script but I had that the entire commit message is automated and has no human analysis or somments. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
