On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 18:49 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 21:59 +0530, Himangi Saraogi wrote:
> > > > This script detects the use of a parenthesis around return value ot the
> > > > return statements and removes them as they are unnecessary and against
> > > > the CodingStyle. A new directory called checkpatch is added for semantic
> > > > patches that just make patches for what checkpatch does. This will help
> > > > developers having checkpatch problems, to run the semantic patches in
> > > > this
> > > > directory on their code and fix some of them automatically.
> > >
> > > checkpatch already has --fix and --fix-inplace options that
> > > do something similar.
> >
> > OK. Then it is not worth adding coccinelle scripts for simple changes
> > like this one.
> >
> > I guess that some of the more complex changes, like choosing an
> > appropriate error message function, checkpatch does not do?
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting.
>
> You mean choosing pr_err vs pr_notice or something
> like finding an active struct <foo> and converting
> printks to <foo>_<level>(&foo, fmt, ...)
>
> from:
> {
> struct device *dev;
> ...
> printk(KERN_ERR "msg", ...)
> to:
> dev_err(dev, "msg", ...)
>
> checkpatch definitely can not do that.
>
> Is it something else?
Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Anyway, we can just test whether
checkpatch --fix can d the change before proposing a semantic patch for
it.
julia
--
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/
