Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible
Hello Julia, On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr wrote: On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: Hello Wolfram, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:29:46AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: Using the BIT() macro instead of manually shifting bits makes the code less error prone and also more readable. Does it? It is a taste thing, yet I don't think it makes the code that much more readable that it is worth changing the whole tree. I believe there is a reason for that macro but yes I agree with you that is a matter of taste and the it shouldn't be enforced. I'm doing a big refactoring for the GPIO subsystem and was told to use coccinelle so this patch was part of my learning. I posted it because I thought that it could be useful but I don't mind the patch to be dropped if that is not the case. Perhaps it could be useful in files that already use BIT somewhere? Well the semantic patch already has a rule that checks if the file includes linux/bitops.h so files that don't include this header will be skipped. I've checked and in most cases when that header is included is because at least the BIT macro is used once on the file. My guess is that the original author included the header and used the macro but other people modifying the file after its original creation just used 1 n instead. But as I said, I've no strong opinion about this patch. I just used to learn the basics of SmPL and to cleanup a driver I maintain and thought it was a good touch to post it in case more people find it useful. julia Thanks a lot and best regards, Javier ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr wrote: On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: Using the BIT() macro instead of manually shifting bits makes the code less error prone and also more readable. Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas jav...@dowhile0.org --- An example of the patches that can be obtained with this spatch: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org/msg02722.html scripts/coccinelle/api/bit.cocci | 25 + 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/api/bit.cocci diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/bit.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/bit.cocci new file mode 100644 index 000..a5df73a --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/bit.cocci @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +// Use the macro BIT() macro if possible +// +// Confidence: High +// Copyright (C) 2014 Javier Martinez Canillas. GPLv2. +// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/ +// Options: --include-headers + +@hasbitops@ +@@ + +#include linux/bitops.h Here you could say: @usesbit@ @@ BIT(...) +@depends on hasbitops@ and then here it would be @depends on hasbitops usesbit@ julia Thanks a lot for the feedback, I'll send a v2 of the patch then. Best regards, Javier ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:29:46AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: Using the BIT() macro instead of manually shifting bits makes the code less error prone and also more readable. Does it? It is a taste thing, yet I don't think it makes the code that much more readable that it is worth changing the whole tree. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
