Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms]

New version. I check for non-use of the return value of strlcpy and address some issues that affected the matching of the case where the first argument involves a pointer dereference. Actually, an isomorphism now takes care of that case, so it doesn't show up in the semantic patch explicitly any

Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle for Go

Hi Markus, Thanks for the reply and the pointers. Those are very helpful. We are trying to evaluate different approaches in this space and trying to choose one that would work the best for us. If we decide to go down this route, we will work with your team to figure out how we can contribute.

Re: [v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints

>> Will further software development considerations become more interesting >> also around a contribution like “Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for >> the reconsideration of redundant dev_err() calls”? >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2744a3fc-9e67-8113-1dd9-43669e063...@web.de/ >>

Re: [v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints

>>> +if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) >> >> Is it appropriate to treat this error code check as optional >> by the shown transformation approach? >> Can this case distinction be omitted? > > I don't know what you mean here. I suggest to take another look at the importance and relevance of this specific

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints

Quoting Markus Elfring (2019-07-24 06:18:35) > > +@script:python depends on org@ > > +p1 << r.p1; > > +@@ > > + > > +cocci.print_main(p1) > > Will an additional message be helpful at this place? > > > Will further software development considerations become more interesting > also around a

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints

Quoting Markus Elfring (2019-07-24 02:30:16) > I would prefer to concentrate the usage of SmPL disjunctions on changing > implementation details so that the specification of duplicate code > can be avoided. > > > > +( > > +platform_get_irq(E, ...) > > +| > > +platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...) > >

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints

> +@script:python depends on org@ > +p1 << r.p1; > +@@ > + > +cocci.print_main(p1) Will an additional message be helpful at this place? Will further software development considerations become more interesting also around a contribution like “Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration

Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 10:28 +, David Laight wrote: > > From: Joe Perches > > > Sent: 24 July 2019 05:38 > > > On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 23:27 -0500, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2019-07-23 at

Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms]

On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 10:28 +, David Laight wrote: > From: Joe Perches > > Sent: 24 July 2019 05:38 > > On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 23:27 -0500, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 22:54 -0500, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > A seantic patch

RE: [Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms]

From: Joe Perches > Sent: 24 July 2019 05:38 > On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 23:27 -0500, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 22:54 -0500, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > A seantic patch and the resulting output for the case where the third > > >

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] coccinelle: Add script to check for platform_get_irq() excessive prints

I would prefer to concentrate the usage of SmPL disjunctions on changing implementation details so that the specification of duplicate code can be avoided. > +( > +platform_get_irq(E, ...) > +| > +platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...) > +); Function names: +(platform_get_irq