Re: [cocci] Revert "scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR_ERR() to %pe candidates"

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>]

>> The test by no means mandates authors to use %pe, as the output says:
>> WARNING: Consider using %pe to print PTR_ERR()
>>
>> "Consider" :).
> 
> Right, but it's preceded by a big "WARNING".

Would you find an other message prefix nicer?


>> I would consider it best practice to use it, and a few drivers were
>> converted thanks to this test.

Would there be more convincing arguments needed according to better practice?


> Unlike the rest of the misc cocci scripts I skimmed, this one does not
> guard against any bugs. Instead it's pushing for a subjective style
> preference, which is just going to result in churn when the clean up
> crew starts sending mindless conversions of individual printks.
> 
> By all means, use %pe for your drivers, but it should not be forced
> upon the rest of us this way.

Is there a need to mark any more SmPL scripts as “controversial”?


>> If the issue is with automatic build bots, then maybe this test should
>> be excluded from them, rather than deleted?
> 
> It's both; it's the noise the new warnings generate but also the coming
> flood up patches to "fix" them. There are already some 40 commits or so
> in linux-next referencing this script.

How will the change tolerance evolve further?

Regards,
Markus