> +# nested likely/unlikely calls
> + if ($line =~
> /\b(?:(?:un)?likely)\s*\(\s*!?\s*(IS_ERR(?:_OR_NULL|_VALUE)?|WARN)/) {
> + WARN("LIKELY_MISUSE",
…
>> \b(?:un)?likely\s*
>
> This pair of brackets is required to match "unlikely"
> and it's optional in order to
+# nested likely/unlikely calls
+ if ($line =~
/\b(?:(?:un)?likely)\s*\(\s*!?\s*(IS_ERR(?:_OR_NULL|_VALUE)?|WARN)/) {
+ WARN("LIKELY_MISUSE",
How do you think about to use the specification
“(?:IS_ERR(?:_(?:OR_NULL|VALUE))?|WARN)”
in this regular
>>> +# nested likely/unlikely calls
>>> + if ($line =~
>>> /\b(?:(?:un)?likely)\s*\(\s*!?\s*(IS_ERR(?:_OR_NULL|_VALUE)?|WARN)/) {
>>> + WARN("LIKELY_MISUSE",
>>
>> How do you think about to use the specification
>> “(?:IS_ERR(?:_(?:OR_NULL|VALUE))?|WARN)”
>> in this regular
On 31.08.2019 19:45, Markus Elfring wrote:
+# nested likely/unlikely calls
+ if ($line =~
/\b(?:(?:un)?likely)\s*\(\s*!?\s*(IS_ERR(?:_OR_NULL|_VALUE)?|WARN)/) {
+ WARN("LIKELY_MISUSE",
>>>
>>> How do you think about to use the specification
>>>
On 31.08.2019 12:15, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> +# nested likely/unlikely calls
>> + if ($line =~
>> /\b(?:(?:un)?likely)\s*\(\s*!?\s*(IS_ERR(?:_OR_NULL|_VALUE)?|WARN)/) {
>> + WARN("LIKELY_MISUSE",
>
> How do you think about to use the specification
>
IS_ERR(), IS_ERR_OR_NULL(), IS_ERR_VALUE() and WARN*() already contain
unlikely() optimization internally. Thus, there is no point in calling
these functions and defines under likely()/unlikely().
This check is based on the coccinelle rule developed by Enrico Weigelt
