Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

>> * Do we agree that a proper size determination is essential for every >> condition in the discussed SmPL rules together with forwarding >> this information? > > No. I don't mind a few false positives. I have got other source code analysis expectations there. This SmPL script contains

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

>> * Do we agree that a proper size determination is essential for every >> condition in the discussed SmPL rules together with forwarding >> this information? > > No. I don't mind a few false positives. I have got other source code analysis expectations there. This SmPL script contains

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical > >> detail that this function does not get a parameter passed which would > >> correspond to such a size information. > >> > >> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical > >> detail that this function does not get a parameter passed which would > >> correspond to such a size information. > >> > >> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

>> The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical >> detail that this function does not get a parameter passed which would >> correspond to such a size information. >> >> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules and omit the rule "r4". > > Nack. I find such a

Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

>> The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical >> detail that this function does not get a parameter passed which would >> correspond to such a size information. >> >> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules and omit the rule "r4". > > Nack. I find such a

Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:20:47 +0100 > > The deletion for a call of the function "memset" depends on > the specification that a size determination is passed by > the expression "E1". > The

Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

On Thu, 1 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:20:47 +0100 > > The deletion for a call of the function "memset" depends on > the specification that a size determination is passed by > the expression "E1". > The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was

[PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

From: Markus Elfring Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:20:47 +0100 The deletion for a call of the function "memset" depends on the specification that a size determination is passed by the expression "E1". The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the

[PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc" from SmPL rules

From: Markus Elfring Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:20:47 +0100 The deletion for a call of the function "memset" depends on the specification that a size determination is passed by the expression "E1". The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical detail that this function

Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

>> Will the rule set be more consistent then? > > If E1 is not bound by the kem_cache_alloc rule, then it will match anything. How much was such a software behaviour intended by the discussed SmPL script? > The user can check if it is appropriate. How does such an information fit to

Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

>> Will the rule set be more consistent then? > > If E1 is not bound by the kem_cache_alloc rule, then it will match anything. How much was such a software behaviour intended by the discussed SmPL script? > The user can check if it is appropriate. How does such an information fit to

Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > I removed the blank line at EOF, > > then applied to linux-kbuild/misc. > > I have taken another look at this script for the semantic patch language. > I imagined that I could refactor the shown SmPL disjunctions a bit. > But I noticed then that

Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > I removed the blank line at EOF, > > then applied to linux-kbuild/misc. > > I have taken another look at this script for the semantic patch language. > I imagined that I could refactor the shown SmPL disjunctions a bit. > But I noticed then that

Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

> I removed the blank line at EOF, > then applied to linux-kbuild/misc. I have taken another look at this script for the semantic patch language. I imagined that I could refactor the shown SmPL disjunctions a bit. But I noticed then that these SmPL rules contain a development mistake. The

Re: [v2] Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function “kmem_cache_alloc” from SmPL rules

> I removed the blank line at EOF, > then applied to linux-kbuild/misc. I have taken another look at this script for the semantic patch language. I imagined that I could refactor the shown SmPL disjunctions a bit. But I noticed then that these SmPL rules contain a development mistake. The