From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:27:06 +0100
Subject: [Cocci] ceph: Deletion of unnecessary checks before two
	function calls
In-Reply-To: <CALFYKtAJG5W9-BAHrqEcC-FfqdJERCqkBADo4yTUyjzb+wCHnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5307CAA2.8060406@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1402212321410.2043@localhost6.localdomain6>	<530A086E.8010901@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1402231635510.1985@localhost6.localdomain6>	<530A72AA.3000601@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1402240658210.2090@localhost6.localdomain6>	<530B5FB6.6010207@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1402241710370.2074@hadrien>	<530C5E18.1020800@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1402251014170.2080@hadrien>	<530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1402251840450.7035@hadrien>	<530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1402252117150.2047@localhost6.localdomain6>	<530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net>	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1402262129250.2221@localhost6.localdomain6>	<5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net>	<54563DCB.2010103@users.sourceforge.net>
 <CALFYKtAJG5W9-BAHrqEcC-FfqdJERCqkBADo4yTUyjzb+wCHnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <545782AA.5080408@users.sourceforge.net>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

> dput() also checks for NULL argument, but the check is wrapped into
> unlikely(), which is why I presume it wasn't picked up.  It would be
> great if you could improve your coccinelle script to handle
> {un,}likely() as well.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Should I consider any more fine-tuning for the affected script
"list_input_parameter_validation1.cocci" in the near future?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/5/362
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.coccinelle/3514


>> @@ -590,15 +589,13 @@ static void queue_realm_cap_snaps(struct ceph_snap_realm
>> *realm)
> 
> The patch was corrupted, that should have been a single line.  I fixed
> it up but you may want to look into your email client settings.

Thanks for your feedback.

Does this example show a conflict between long comments after patch ranges and
line length limitation for email eventually?

Regards,
Markus