Some comments: If you get 20 good results and 22 false positives, I'm not sure whether high confidence is justified. That seemes more like moderate confidence.
On the other hand, I think it is possible to get rid of the false positives. The false positives are coming from the fact that you have: if ( \( vu < 0 \| vu <= 0 \) ) S1 else S2 This can be flipped around to if ( ! \( vu < 0 \| vu <= 0 \) ) S2 else S1 and then when we propagate the ! into the disjunction, we get v >= 0 for the first condition and v > 0 for the second condition. v >= 0 is always true, so it could be reasonable to highlight it, but v > 0 is a perfectly reasonable test for an unsigned value, and is where you are getting the false positives from. If you want to get rid of both v >= 0 and v < 0 then you can just put disable neg_if in the initial @@, just after r, ie @r disable neg_if@ On the other hand, if you want to keep the warning on v >= 0 but drop the warning on v > 0, then you will have to split the rules and put the disable neg_if on the one for v <= 0. I think it would also be reasonable to merge the proposed semantic patches. I guess this one gives most of the results anyway? With recursive_includes, I got 70 results, at least 20 of which should be false positives due to the MB case. 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/
