Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cleanup: Tweak and re-run return_directly.cocci

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org> writes:

> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 16:15:11 +0100
> Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:49:16 +0100
>> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Tweak the semantic patch to drop redundant parenthesis around the
>> > return expression.
>> > 
>> > Coccinelle drops a comment in hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c; restored
>> > manually.
>> > 
>> > Coccinelle messes up vmdk_co_create(), not sure why.  Change dropped,
>> > will be done manually in the next commit.
>> > 
>> > Line breaks in target/avr/cpu.h and hw/rdma/vmw/pvrdma_cmd.c tidied up
>> > manually.
>> > 
>> > Whitespace in tools/virtiofsd/fuse_lowlevel.c tidied up manually.
>> > 
>> > checkpatch.pl complains "return of an errno should typically be -ve"
>> > two times for hw/9pfs/9p-synth.c.  Preexisting, the patch merely makes
>> > it visible to checkpatch.pl.
>> > 
>> 
>> Hi Markus,
>> 
>> Yeah these positive errno values have been sitting there since the
>> beginning. It was dead code until I hijacked the synth backend to
>> implement qtest for 9p. I didn't care much about the return value
>> of the two culprits at the time since both are passed to assert(!ret)
>> right away. For this reason, changing the sign should be easy :-)
>> 
>> I see that checkpatch.pl considers this as an error. I'll post
>> a fix. I guess you'll need to rebase on this fix for your patches
>> to pass CI.
>> 
>
> Or maybe I can fix the issues detected by coccinelle as well and
> you can just drop the 9p bits from this patch ?

Up to you!

>> Anyway, for 9p:
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>

Thanks!