From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:30:53 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH with Coccinelle?] Deletion of unnecessary checks before specific function calls In-Reply-To: References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net> <530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net> <530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net> <530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net> <530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net> <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> Message-ID: <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > If you are convinced that dropping the null tests is a good idea, then you > can submit the patch that makes the change to the relevant maintainers and > mailing lists. Hello, A couple of functions perform input parameter validation before their implementations will try further actions with side effects. Some calling functions perform similar safety checks. Functions which release a system resource are often documented in the way that they tolerate the passing of a null pointer for example. I do not see a need because of this fact that a function caller repeats a corresponding check. Now I would like to propose such a change again. 1. Extension of the infrastructure for the analysis tool "coccicheck" Semantic patch patterns can help to identify update candidates also in the Linux source file hierarchy. https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle?id=79f0345fefaafb7cde301a830471edd21a37989b 2. Clarification for some automated update suggestions My source code search approach found seventy functions at least which might need another review and corresponding corrections for Linux 3.14-rc5. Further software development will point out even more potentially open issues. Regards, Markus