[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi all,

I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes causes
hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act

My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I added
in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail thread).

Therefore, I would expect to be able to set the 'depends on' to be on
'probe_id_unused' for each of the actions, and have actions only taken
if the full dependency chain (C4->C1 below) is met.

However, I get a non-consistent application of this, where some hunks
operate when (I believe) they shouldn't:

My full spatch for reference, is at:

https://gist.github.com/kbingham/96477177dd20a72b1c2f

In essence, it does the following {C}hecks:
C1 - of_dev_id_present : Check for a struct of_device_id
C2 - dev_id : Check for a struct i2c_device_id
C3 - driver : Check and identify the probefunc in the driver structure
C4 - probe_id_unused : Establish if the id is used in the probe function

Where C4 depends on C3 depends on C2 depends on C1

The aim is that if all of the above checks/identifiers are met, it will
take the following actions:
A rewrite the probe function declaration
B re-point the function pointer in the driver structure
C remove the i2c_device_id reference
D remove the i2c_device_id array
E remove the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro

For this example, I'll take three files from the kernel source, all of
which meet conditions C1 - > C3 (but only F3 meets C4):

F1: drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c  : probe id used ( ! C4 )
F2: drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c : probe id used ( ! C4 )
F3: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c : probe id UNUSED ( C4 )

If all the actions (A->E) start with @ depends on driver @ (to depend on
C3) all the actions complete on these files. (Shown in sequence in the c
file)

F1 : D E A B C
F2 : A D E B C
F3 : A D E B C

However, if all the actions depend on @ depends on probe_id_unused @
(depends on C4), Some actions complete, and some do not!

F1 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F1 : <no change>)
F2 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F2 : <no change>)
F3 : A D E B C   (Expected behaviour)

So of course, I want actions D E and C to *not* complete on F1 and F2,
but I can't understand why they do not comply with their 'depends'
chain. Am I looking at a bug in Coccinelle here or a bug with my
interpretation of the depends keyword?

Sorry for the long mail, and look forward to any ideas!

--
Regards

Kieran

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes causes
> hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
>
> My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
> changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
> file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I added
> in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail thread).

I'll check on the rest shortly, but if you really want to not process the
file at all, just look for the condition in which that is the case, and
then write a python rule that depends on it, and run Cocci.exit() (not
sure about the exact syntax - writing an ocaml rule and putting
Coccilib.exit() will also work).

julia

> Therefore, I would expect to be able to set the 'depends on' to be on
> 'probe_id_unused' for each of the actions, and have actions only taken
> if the full dependency chain (C4->C1 below) is met.
>
> However, I get a non-consistent application of this, where some hunks
> operate when (I believe) they shouldn't:
>
> My full spatch for reference, is at:
>
> https://gist.github.com/kbingham/96477177dd20a72b1c2f
>
> In essence, it does the following {C}hecks:
> C1 - of_dev_id_present : Check for a struct of_device_id
> C2 - dev_id : Check for a struct i2c_device_id
> C3 - driver : Check and identify the probefunc in the driver structure
> C4 - probe_id_unused : Establish if the id is used in the probe function
>
> Where C4 depends on C3 depends on C2 depends on C1
>
> The aim is that if all of the above checks/identifiers are met, it will
> take the following actions:
> A rewrite the probe function declaration
> B re-point the function pointer in the driver structure
> C remove the i2c_device_id reference
> D remove the i2c_device_id array
> E remove the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro
>
> For this example, I'll take three files from the kernel source, all of
> which meet conditions C1 - > C3 (but only F3 meets C4):
>
> F1: drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c  : probe id used ( ! C4 )
> F2: drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c : probe id used ( ! C4 )
> F3: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c : probe id UNUSED ( C4 )
>
> If all the actions (A->E) start with @ depends on driver @ (to depend on
> C3) all the actions complete on these files. (Shown in sequence in the c
> file)
>
> F1 : D E A B C
> F2 : A D E B C
> F3 : A D E B C
>
> However, if all the actions depend on @ depends on probe_id_unused @
> (depends on C4), Some actions complete, and some do not!
>
> F1 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F1 : <no change>)
> F2 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F2 : <no change>)
> F3 : A D E B C   (Expected behaviour)
>
> So of course, I want actions D E and C to *not* complete on F1 and F2,
> but I can't understand why they do not comply with their 'depends'
> chain. Am I looking at a bug in Coccinelle here or a bug with my
> interpretation of the depends keyword?
>
> Sorry for the long mail, and look forward to any ideas!
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Kieran
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci at systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Kieran Bingham]

On 20/04/16 16:53, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes causes
>> hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
>>
>> My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
>> changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
>> file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I added
>> in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail thread).
> 
> I'll check on the rest shortly, but if you really want to not process the
> file at all, just look for the condition in which that is the case, and
> then write a python rule that depends on it, and run Cocci.exit() (not
> sure about the exact syntax - writing an ocaml rule and putting
> Coccilib.exit() will also work).


Thanks Julia,

The following worked for my needs:

@ script:python depends on driver && !probe_id_unused @
@@
print("Probe function uses the ID parameter")
cocci.exit()

However, interestingly - it's not useful if I specify a minimal set of
files on the command line:

Using the command:
spatch --linux-spacing --sp-file patches/i2c-dt.cocci $A $B $C $D
HANDLING: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c
drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c ./drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c
Probe function uses the ID parameter
kbingham at CookieMonster:/opt/projects/linux/kbuild-bbb/sources/linux$

appears to stop at the first file (which is expected to stop) without
processing the next files.

However, simply using the '.' target - does appear to iterate through
the entire sources successfully, parsing files it can, and stopping on
files that it should stop on.

Thanks again,

--
Kieran

> julia
> 
>> Therefore, I would expect to be able to set the 'depends on' to be on
>> 'probe_id_unused' for each of the actions, and have actions only taken
>> if the full dependency chain (C4->C1 below) is met.
>>
>> However, I get a non-consistent application of this, where some hunks
>> operate when (I believe) they shouldn't:
>>
>> My full spatch for reference, is at:
>>
>> https://gist.github.com/kbingham/96477177dd20a72b1c2f
>>
>> In essence, it does the following {C}hecks:
>> C1 - of_dev_id_present : Check for a struct of_device_id
>> C2 - dev_id : Check for a struct i2c_device_id
>> C3 - driver : Check and identify the probefunc in the driver structure
>> C4 - probe_id_unused : Establish if the id is used in the probe function
>>
>> Where C4 depends on C3 depends on C2 depends on C1
>>
>> The aim is that if all of the above checks/identifiers are met, it will
>> take the following actions:
>> A rewrite the probe function declaration
>> B re-point the function pointer in the driver structure
>> C remove the i2c_device_id reference
>> D remove the i2c_device_id array
>> E remove the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro
>>
>> For this example, I'll take three files from the kernel source, all of
>> which meet conditions C1 - > C3 (but only F3 meets C4):
>>
>> F1: drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c  : probe id used ( ! C4 )
>> F2: drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c : probe id used ( ! C4 )
>> F3: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c : probe id UNUSED ( C4 )
>>
>> If all the actions (A->E) start with @ depends on driver @ (to depend on
>> C3) all the actions complete on these files. (Shown in sequence in the c
>> file)
>>
>> F1 : D E A B C
>> F2 : A D E B C
>> F3 : A D E B C
>>
>> However, if all the actions depend on @ depends on probe_id_unused @
>> (depends on C4), Some actions complete, and some do not!
>>
>> F1 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F1 : <no change>)
>> F2 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F2 : <no change>)
>> F3 : A D E B C   (Expected behaviour)
>>
>> So of course, I want actions D E and C to *not* complete on F1 and F2,
>> but I can't understand why they do not comply with their 'depends'
>> chain. Am I looking at a bug in Coccinelle here or a bug with my
>> interpretation of the depends keyword?
>>
>> Sorry for the long mail, and look forward to any ideas!
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Kieran
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cocci mailing list
>> Cocci at systeme.lip6.fr
>> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>>

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:

> On 20/04/16 16:53, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes causes
> >> hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
> >>
> >> My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
> >> changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
> >> file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I added
> >> in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail thread).
> >
> > I'll check on the rest shortly, but if you really want to not process the
> > file at all, just look for the condition in which that is the case, and
> > then write a python rule that depends on it, and run Cocci.exit() (not
> > sure about the exact syntax - writing an ocaml rule and putting
> > Coccilib.exit() will also work).
>
>
> Thanks Julia,
>
> The following worked for my needs:
>
> @ script:python depends on driver && !probe_id_unused @
> @@
> print("Probe function uses the ID parameter")
> cocci.exit()
>
> However, interestingly - it's not useful if I specify a minimal set of
> files on the command line:
>
> Using the command:
> spatch --linux-spacing --sp-file patches/i2c-dt.cocci $A $B $C $D
> HANDLING: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c
> drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c ./drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c
> Probe function uses the ID parameter
> kbingham at CookieMonster:/opt/projects/linux/kbuild-bbb/sources/linux$
>
> appears to stop at the first file (which is expected to stop) without
> processing the next files.
>
> However, simply using the '.' target - does appear to iterate through
> the entire sources successfully, parsing files it can, and stopping on
> files that it should stop on.

Putting multiple files on the command line is not the right way to process
multiple files.  What that means is to process those files all at once.
Normally Coccinelle processes only one file at a time, which means that
when there is a call from a function in one file to a function in another,
it won't find the definition of the called function.  If you put multiple
files on the command line, it will see them all at once.  The downside
though is that Coccinelle will ultimately run more slowly, because it will
be using a lot more memory at a given time.

If you have a directory where you want to process only some of the files,
you can use the --file-groups <file> option.  <file> could be eg

path/foo.c
path/bar.c

path/xyz.c

Then foo.c and bar.c will be processed at once, and xyz.c will be
processed separately.

But it could be easier to just work on the whole directory and let
Coccinelle to fail to do anything with most of the files.

julia

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Kieran Bingham]

On 20 Apr 2016 17:31, "Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>
> > On 20/04/16 16:53, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes
causes
> > >> hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
> > >>
> > >> My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
> > >> changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
> > >> file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I
added
> > >> in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail
thread).
> > >
> > > I'll check on the rest shortly, but if you really want to not process
the
> > > file at all, just look for the condition in which that is the case,
and
> > > then write a python rule that depends on it, and run Cocci.exit() (not
> > > sure about the exact syntax - writing an ocaml rule and putting
> > > Coccilib.exit() will also work).
> >
> >
> > Thanks Julia,
> >
> > The following worked for my needs:
> >
> > @ script:python depends on driver && !probe_id_unused @
> > @@
> > print("Probe function uses the ID parameter")
> > cocci.exit()
> >
> > However, interestingly - it's not useful if I specify a minimal set of
> > files on the command line:
> >
> > Using the command:
> > spatch --linux-spacing --sp-file patches/i2c-dt.cocci $A $B $C $D
> > HANDLING: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c ./drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c
> > Probe function uses the ID parameter
> > kbingham at CookieMonster:/opt/projects/linux/kbuild-bbb/sources/linux$
> >
> > appears to stop at the first file (which is expected to stop) without
> > processing the next files.
> >
> > However, simply using the '.' target - does appear to iterate through
> > the entire sources successfully, parsing files it can, and stopping on
> > files that it should stop on.
>
> Putting multiple files on the command line is not the right way to process
> multiple files.  What that means is to process those files all at once.
> Normally Coccinelle processes only one file at a time, which means that
> when there is a call from a function in one file to a function in another,
> it won't find the definition of the called function.  If you put multiple
> files on the command line, it will see them all at once.  The downside
> though is that Coccinelle will ultimately run more slowly, because it will
> be using a lot more memory at a given time.
>
> If you have a directory where you want to process only some of the files,
> you can use the --file-groups <file> option.  <file> could be eg
>
> path/foo.c
> path/bar.c
>
> path/xyz.c
>
> Then foo.c and bar.c will be processed at once, and xyz.c will be
> processed separately.
>
> But it could be easier to just work on the whole directory and let
> Coccinelle to fail to do anything with most of the files.

Ah I see.  I bet that explains my other dependency issue as well.  It was
probably matching state from other processed files in the same processing
group.

I had been specifying a group of files to make sure the right thing was
being done in the processing. In the whole tree about 250 files match so I
was trying to reduce the set to verify.

It looks like the act of me trying to reduce the set changed the processing
though ;-)

I guess I could create a single folder with the reduced set in, but it
looks like its doing the right thing now with the exit ()

Thanks

Kieran

>
> julia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/attachments/20160420/81814080/attachment.html>

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:

>
>
> On 20 Apr 2016 17:31, "Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >
> > > On 20/04/16 16:53, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes
> causes
> > > >> hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
> > > >>
> > > >> My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
> > > >> changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
> > > >> file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I
> added
> > > >> in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail
> thread).
> > > >
> > > > I'll check on the rest shortly, but if you really want to not process
> the
> > > > file at all, just look for the condition in which that is the case,
> and
> > > > then write a python rule that depends on it, and run Cocci.exit() (not
> > > > sure about the exact syntax - writing an ocaml rule and putting
> > > > Coccilib.exit() will also work).
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Julia,
> > >
> > > The following worked for my needs:
> > >
> > > @ script:python depends on driver && !probe_id_unused @
> > > @@
> > > print("Probe function uses the ID parameter")
> > > cocci.exit()
> > >
> > > However, interestingly - it's not useful if I specify a minimal set of
> > > files on the command line:
> > >
> > > Using the command:
> > > spatch --linux-spacing --sp-file patches/i2c-dt.cocci $A $B $C $D
> > > HANDLING: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c
> > > drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c ./drivers/rtc/rtc-ds1307.c
> > > Probe function uses the ID parameter
> > > kbingham at CookieMonster:/opt/projects/linux/kbuild-bbb/sources/linux$
> > >
> > > appears to stop at the first file (which is expected to stop) without
> > > processing the next files.
> > >
> > > However, simply using the '.' target - does appear to iterate through
> > > the entire sources successfully, parsing files it can, and stopping on
> > > files that it should stop on.
> >
> > Putting multiple files on the command line is not the right way to process
> > multiple files.? What that means is to process those files all at once.
> > Normally Coccinelle processes only one file at a time, which means that
> > when there is a call from a function in one file to a function in another,
> > it won't find the definition of the called function.? If you put multiple
> > files on the command line, it will see them all at once.? The downside
> > though is that Coccinelle will ultimately run more slowly, because it will
> > be using a lot more memory at a given time.
> >
> > If you have a directory where you want to process only some of the files,
> > you can use the --file-groups <file> option.? <file> could be eg
> >
> > path/foo.c
> > path/bar.c
> >
> > path/xyz.c
> >
> > Then foo.c and bar.c will be processed at once, and xyz.c will be
> > processed separately.
> >
> > But it could be easier to just work on the whole directory and let
> > Coccinelle to fail to do anything with most of the files.
>
> Ah I see.? I bet that explains my other dependency issue as well.? It was
> probably matching state from other processed files in the same processing
> group.
>
> I had been specifying a group of files to make sure the right thing was
> being done in the processing. In the whole tree about 250 files match so I
> was trying to reduce the set to verify.?
>
> It looks like the act of me trying to reduce the set changed the processing
> though ;-)
>
> I guess I could create a single folder with the reduced set in, but it looks
> like its doing the right thing now with the exit ()

You may find it useful to use glimpse or id-utils to index your files.  In
coccinelle/scripts there are idutils_index.sh and glimpseindex_cocci.sh,
respectively.  The you can use --use-glimpse or --use-idutils, and it will
go directly to the files that contain the important keywords of your
semantic patch.  Not parsing the other files will be a big savings.  The
downside of course is that you have to redo the index every time your code
base changes.

julia

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Julia Lawall]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes causes
> hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
>
> My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
> changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
> file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I added
> in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail thread).
>
> Therefore, I would expect to be able to set the 'depends on' to be on
> 'probe_id_unused' for each of the actions, and have actions only taken
> if the full dependency chain (C4->C1 below) is met.
>
> However, I get a non-consistent application of this, where some hunks
> operate when (I believe) they shouldn't:
>
> My full spatch for reference, is at:
>
> https://gist.github.com/kbingham/96477177dd20a72b1c2f
>
> In essence, it does the following {C}hecks:
> C1 - of_dev_id_present : Check for a struct of_device_id
> C2 - dev_id : Check for a struct i2c_device_id
> C3 - driver : Check and identify the probefunc in the driver structure
> C4 - probe_id_unused : Establish if the id is used in the probe function
>
> Where C4 depends on C3 depends on C2 depends on C1
>
> The aim is that if all of the above checks/identifiers are met, it will
> take the following actions:
> A rewrite the probe function declaration
> B re-point the function pointer in the driver structure
> C remove the i2c_device_id reference
> D remove the i2c_device_id array
> E remove the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro
>
> For this example, I'll take three files from the kernel source, all of
> which meet conditions C1 - > C3 (but only F3 meets C4):
>
> F1: drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c  : probe id used ( ! C4 )
> F2: drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c : probe id used ( ! C4 )
> F3: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c : probe id UNUSED ( C4 )
>
> If all the actions (A->E) start with @ depends on driver @ (to depend on
> C3) all the actions complete on these files. (Shown in sequence in the c
> file)
>
> F1 : D E A B C
> F2 : A D E B C
> F3 : A D E B C
>
> However, if all the actions depend on @ depends on probe_id_unused @
> (depends on C4), Some actions complete, and some do not!
>
> F1 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F1 : <no change>)
> F2 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F2 : <no change>)
> F3 : A D E B C   (Expected behaviour)
>
> So of course, I want actions D E and C to *not* complete on F1 and F2,
> but I can't understand why they do not comply with their 'depends'
> chain. Am I looking at a bug in Coccinelle here or a bug with my
> interpretation of the depends keyword?
>
> Sorry for the long mail, and look forward to any ideas!

What version of Coccinelle do you have?  I get the expected behavior.  No
change on F1 and F2, and a change on F3.

julia

[Cocci] Dependencies between spatch hunks

[Kieran Bingham]

On 20 Apr 2016 17:46, "Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am finding that a rule which matches a part of code, sometimes causes
> > hunks which depend on it to act, and sometimes not to act
> >
> > My spatch is successfully removing and converting hunks that I desire
> > changed, however the requirement became apparent *to not process the
> > file at all* if the variable is used in the probe function, so I added
> > in a dependency on probe_id_unused (established in my previous mail
thread).
> >
> > Therefore, I would expect to be able to set the 'depends on' to be on
> > 'probe_id_unused' for each of the actions, and have actions only taken
> > if the full dependency chain (C4->C1 below) is met.
> >
> > However, I get a non-consistent application of this, where some hunks
> > operate when (I believe) they shouldn't:
> >
> > My full spatch for reference, is at:
> >
> > https://gist.github.com/kbingham/96477177dd20a72b1c2f
> >
> > In essence, it does the following {C}hecks:
> > C1 - of_dev_id_present : Check for a struct of_device_id
> > C2 - dev_id : Check for a struct i2c_device_id
> > C3 - driver : Check and identify the probefunc in the driver structure
> > C4 - probe_id_unused : Establish if the id is used in the probe function
> >
> > Where C4 depends on C3 depends on C2 depends on C1
> >
> > The aim is that if all of the above checks/identifiers are met, it will
> > take the following actions:
> > A rewrite the probe function declaration
> > B re-point the function pointer in the driver structure
> > C remove the i2c_device_id reference
> > D remove the i2c_device_id array
> > E remove the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE macro
> >
> > For this example, I'll take three files from the kernel source, all of
> > which meet conditions C1 - > C3 (but only F3 meets C4):
> >
> > F1: drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c  : probe id used ( ! C4 )
> > F2: drivers/staging/iio/light/isl29018.c : probe id used ( ! C4 )
> > F3: sound/soc/codecs/wm8737.c : probe id UNUSED ( C4 )
> >
> > If all the actions (A->E) start with @ depends on driver @ (to depend on
> > C3) all the actions complete on these files. (Shown in sequence in the c
> > file)
> >
> > F1 : D E A B C
> > F2 : A D E B C
> > F3 : A D E B C
> >
> > However, if all the actions depend on @ depends on probe_id_unused @
> > (depends on C4), Some actions complete, and some do not!
> >
> > F1 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F1 : <no change>)
> > F2 : D E C       (Unexpected behaviour - I expect F2 : <no change>)
> > F3 : A D E B C   (Expected behaviour)
> >
> > So of course, I want actions D E and C to *not* complete on F1 and F2,
> > but I can't understand why they do not comply with their 'depends'
> > chain. Am I looking at a bug in Coccinelle here or a bug with my
> > interpretation of the depends keyword?
> >
> > Sorry for the long mail, and look forward to any ideas!
>
> What version of Coccinelle do you have?  I get the expected behavior.  No
> change on F1 and F2, and a change on F3.

I think the fault was somewhere between the keyboard and chair :-)

I'm away from my keyboard now,  so I can't check but I'll assume it was
because I was specifying the files in one command line.

Regards

Kieran

>
> julia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/attachments/20160420/dfcb6499/attachment-0001.html>