All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
	Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>,
	Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cocci] coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:27:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6ce5346f-127d-e2fd-c703-9adf21060e30@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006151742090.23306@hadrien>

>> +virtual report, org, context, patch
>>
>> Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
>
> This doens't matter.

Can less duplicate code be a bit nicer?


>>> +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> +	<...
>>> +*	return snprintf@p(...);
>>> +	...>
>>> +}
>>
>> I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783
>>
>> Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?
>
> <... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what
> is inside the <... ...>

I propose once more to distinguish better if the shown return statement
may be really treated as optional for such a source code search approach
(or not).

Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
	Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>,
	Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:27:50 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6ce5346f-127d-e2fd-c703-9adf21060e30@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006151742090.23306@hadrien>

>> +virtual report, org, context, patch
>>
>> Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
>
> This doens't matter.

Can less duplicate code be a bit nicer?


>>> +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> +	<...
>>> +*	return snprintf@p(...);
>>> +	...>
>>> +}
>>
>> I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783
>>
>> Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?
>
> <... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what
> is inside the <... ...>

I propose once more to distinguish better if the shown return statement
may be really treated as optional for such a source code search approach
(or not).

Regards,
Markus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
	Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>,
	Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Cc: Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:27:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6ce5346f-127d-e2fd-c703-9adf21060e30@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2006151742090.23306@hadrien>

>> +virtual report, org, context, patch
>>
>> Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
>
> This doens't matter.

Can less duplicate code be a bit nicer?


>>> +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> +	<...
>>> +*	return snprintf@p(...);
>>> +	...>
>>> +}
>>
>> I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783
>>
>> Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?
>
> <... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what
> is inside the <... ...>

I propose once more to distinguish better if the shown return statement
may be really treated as optional for such a source code search approach
(or not).

Regards,
Markus

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-15 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-15 14:04 [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: api: add device_attr_show script Markus Elfring
2020-06-15 14:04 ` Markus Elfring
2020-06-15 14:04 ` Markus Elfring
2020-06-15 15:43 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2020-06-15 15:43   ` Julia Lawall
2020-06-15 15:43   ` Julia Lawall
2020-06-15 16:27   ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2020-06-15 16:27     ` Markus Elfring
2020-06-15 16:27     ` Markus Elfring

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6ce5346f-127d-e2fd-c703-9adf21060e30@web.de \
    --to=markus.elfring@web.de \
    --cc=Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr \
    --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
    --cc=efremov@linux.com \
    --cc=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.