Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 6:06 PM Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > When I searched "Wen Yang", v6 did not show up for some reasons. > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series==22638=*=== > > > > I find such a situation also interesting somehow. > > I assume that there was another temporary technical difficulty involved > > with the Linux mailing list (and related information systems). > > > I think v6 fell into a crack somehow. > > > Check the LKML archive: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/16 > > > I see your reply: > > Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()Markus > Elfring > > > But, I cannot find the v6 patch itself. > > > > > > > > So, I just thought v5 was the latest one > > > and I was completely missing the context. > > > > Did any messages for the sixth (and seventh) script version reach you? > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ > > > I use both my corporate email address and Gmail, > and play it by ear. > > > I see it in my corporate mail box now. > It reached me probably because I subscribe to cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > with my socionext email address. > > However, this time I only checked my Gmail box, > which subscribes to linux-kernel ML, but not cocci ML. > > I just skimmed over the thread, then > I missed the fact you were giving some comments about v6. > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yan...@zte.com.cn/ > > > Yes. I see this one. > > I will apply it to fixes branch > if nobody sees a problem in it. This one is fine independent of anything else. thanks, julia ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>> So, I just thought v5 was the latest one >> and I was completely missing the context. > > I think it is a minor detail Additional implementation details were discussed also for this script of the semantic patch language. > that will have no impact in practice. It will take another while to understand the relevance for the circumstances of corresponding software adjustments better, won't it? Will mentioned change possibilities be repeated with other update steps? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
> When I searched "Wen Yang", v6 did not show up for some reasons. > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series==22638=*=== I find such a situation also interesting somehow. I assume that there was another temporary technical difficulty involved with the Linux mailing list (and related information systems). > So, I just thought v5 was the latest one > and I was completely missing the context. Did any messages for the sixth (and seventh) script version reach you? https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yan...@zte.com.cn/ Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:19 AM Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > > Applied to linux-kbuild. > > > > A questionable development version was integrated for this SmPL script. > > > Sorry for my bad job. > > I usually use LKML patchwork to find patches. > > When I searched "Wen Yang", v6 did not show up for some reasons. > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series==22638=*=== > > So, I just thought v5 was the latest one > and I was completely missing the context. I think it is a minor detail that will have no impact in practice. julia > > > Apology. > > Masahiro > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/scripts/coccinelle/free/put_device.cocci?id=da9cfb87a44da61f2403c4312916befcb6b6d7e8 > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ > > > > > > Now I am curious on how such a source code analysis approach will be > > improved further. > > Which changes will get the desired acceptance? > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1053979/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yan...@zte.com.cn/ > > https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-March/005679.html > > > > Regards, > > Markus > -- > Best Regards > Masahiro Yamada > ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:19 AM Markus Elfring wrote: > > > Applied to linux-kbuild. > > A questionable development version was integrated for this SmPL script. Sorry for my bad job. I usually use LKML patchwork to find patches. When I searched "Wen Yang", v6 did not show up for some reasons. https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/project/lkml/list/?series==22638=*=== So, I just thought v5 was the latest one and I was completely missing the context. Apology. Masahiro > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/scripts/coccinelle/free/put_device.cocci?id=da9cfb87a44da61f2403c4312916befcb6b6d7e8 > > https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ > > > Now I am curious on how such a source code analysis approach will be > improved further. > Which changes will get the desired acceptance? > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1053979/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yan...@zte.com.cn/ > https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-March/005679.html > > Regards, > Markus -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
> Applied to linux-kbuild. A questionable development version was integrated for this SmPL script. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/scripts/coccinelle/free/put_device.cocci?id=da9cfb87a44da61f2403c4312916befcb6b6d7e8 https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ Now I am curious on how such a source code analysis approach will be improved further. Which changes will get the desired acceptance? https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1053979/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yan...@zte.com.cn/ https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-March/005679.html Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
> Applied to linux-kbuild. How does this information fit to the published sixth version of the discussed script for the semantic patch language? https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/hk0pr02mb36344e2b29ceb195892f6420b2...@hk0pr02mb3634.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com/ https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005598.html Are possible changes still in the waiting queue for a seventh variant? https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>> Thus I do not see a need (or requirement) for a duplicate search attempt.
>
> Why don't you actually try it and see what the difference is rather than
> repeatedly giving false information?
I suggest to clarify this software development disagreement by the following
SmPL code.
... when != put_stuff(my_pointer)
when != if (...) { ... put_stuff(my_pointer) ... }
Is this a specification for a bit of duplicate code?
Or:
Do you insist to find such a function call only within a branch of an if
statement?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> We will modify the the if in the when code like this:
> >>
> >> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
> >> ... when != put_device(>dev)
> …
> >> -when != if (id) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
> >> +when != if (...) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
> >
> > This looks ok.
>
> I have got another different software development opinion also for
> such SmPL code in the adjusted line.
> I find this specific source code search variant irrelevant
> because the shown reference release function should be found
> by the first SmPL when specification already.
> Would you like to determine generally if the desired function call
> is present at all?
>
> Thus I do not see a need (or requirement) for a duplicate search attempt.
Why don't you actually try it and see what the difference is rather than
repeatedly giving false information?
julia___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>> We will modify the the if in the when code like this:
>>
>> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>> ... when != put_device(>dev)
…
>> -when != if (id) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
>> +when != if (...) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
>
> This looks ok.
I have got another different software development opinion also for
such SmPL code in the adjusted line.
I find this specific source code search variant irrelevant
because the shown reference release function should be found
by the first SmPL when specification already.
Would you like to determine generally if the desired function call
is present at all?
Thus I do not see a need (or requirement) for a duplicate search attempt.
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>> Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call >> of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement? > > It does include that, Thanks for this acknowledgement. So it seems that you find my interpretation of this bit of SmPL code appropriate. > but there is another execution path where the put device is not present. It is tried to find such cases. > But given the test in the if in the when code, > on that execution path id is NULL, an so there is no need to put it. I would like to point out that the function “put_device” belongs also to the category of functions which tolerate the passing of null pointers. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0-rc6/source/drivers/base/core.c#L2053 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/base/core.c?id=cb5b020a8d38f77209d0472a0fea755299a8ec78#n2053 Have we got still different software development opinions about the need for an extra pointer check in the “second” SmPL when specification? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> …
> >>> +if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
> >>> +... when != put_device(>dev)
> >> …
> >>> +when != if (id) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
> >> …
> >>
> >> I would interpret this SmPL code in the way that the if statement
> >> for the pointer check is “optional” in this line.
> >> Is it an extra and redundant SmPL specification when the reference
> >> release function could eventually be found just anywhere within
> >> an implementation?
> >
> > The proposed when code is correct.
>
> I agree that this SmPL code can work in the way it was designed.
>
>
> > It is not redundant, because it checks for a particular control-flow
> > pattern.
>
> It took another moment until I dared to express a different software
> development opinion also on this implementation detail.
>
> Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
> of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement?
It does include that, but there is another execution path where the
put device is not present. But given the test in the if in the when code,
on that execution path id is NULL, an so there is no need to put it.
julia___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
…
>>> +if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>>> +... when != put_device(>dev)
>> …
>>> +when != if (id) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
>> …
>>
>> I would interpret this SmPL code in the way that the if statement
>> for the pointer check is “optional” in this line.
>> Is it an extra and redundant SmPL specification when the reference
>> release function could eventually be found just anywhere within
>> an implementation?
>
> The proposed when code is correct.
I agree that this SmPL code can work in the way it was designed.
> It is not redundant, because it checks for a particular control-flow pattern.
It took another moment until I dared to express a different software
development opinion also on this implementation detail.
Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
…
>>> +if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>>> +... when != put_device(>dev)
>> …
>>> +when != if (id) { ... put_device(>dev) ... }
>> …
>>
>> I would interpret this SmPL code in the way that the if statement
>> for the pointer check is “optional” in this line.
>> Is it an extra and redundant SmPL specification when the reference
>> release function could eventually be found just anywhere within
>> an implementation?
>
> The proposed when code is correct.
I agree that this SmPL code can work in the way it was designed.
> It is not redundant, because it checks for a particular control-flow pattern.
It took another moment until I dared to express a different software
development opinion also on this implementation detail.
Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
