From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8789DC761A6 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231837AbjCaXtK (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:49:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56728 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230195AbjCaXtI (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:49:08 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-x1135.google.com (mail-yw1-x1135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1135]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CA701BF52 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x1135.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-545cb3c9898so369074287b3.7 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:49:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; t=1680306545; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fufowuCFsu0CjEHx6YCFElYGeWTnBV4lbQfj2ePc7jE=; b=I/nhSnn30hWohUisrpiMkFhCOjQtrBQq69MYcRBdoNVyOzxCgaD/FXF2VcgyaMxdJb 8nxIxMphSI1hQ9FDHe1WHpcJjhJ3e1kORVAhlxS/WsA5yPRh6Tu48k7D4Bkw+g9vCxMI oXNK/x37Gf3HOTvBzXsewQXKMgGY21CCu4eoKy3KtCNO1t5no4BduMx72/JBX9+O2kpI i9XR0F8NlTkuKBy+5leFr7OW7p8C9z+rkYWZ+el9JUg+nlpbLuV4WDaOW1Mh07UBzygB 0mCX4dQFvSDjr8PrqNSOpATcNmmGrdVv0P/TdiWqIYYPlJWcxGRkFwXdrNSg7o43RAtS kP9Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680306545; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fufowuCFsu0CjEHx6YCFElYGeWTnBV4lbQfj2ePc7jE=; b=pLHjG0O98+lvQ6391X6rhhpbiruQBX5BVJpqJjbRoBTCQOtn6HagCY8noCiMmsSod5 xFPG2lffUDpkn5W+v/BkoAmAHYzW2UMmFqrom586weOa1EtxJfw4aNAi2THeLZmjK+qa ben23/yD9eYA/zXduKyPARez2THWB8s8KaHDgN+eQJaBlWy/kNRsfZTlc4ofVERiWUX5 d3lLj07Neb49NIy7fJaCO+sNUQmtEj6UHc5fwhEXwqkxI1sHnBOkn1Am4WneLGA5Bbd9 QhNBhFEizSCYDv21YBS0TAHedbptuBVQgAbbqdMdXTxzwQFyszr6bXH/u6c3Ff7du1vt knwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9dgy3jsVxQUcdAdYUkp3nZ45jI51v2a6iuPdPskvCuZ13/42cO1 yrZ4HLIddlOJyoxH/hGQ9SA8lg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z5iwvNOJBX+Ne31Zz0N1SD1Cbr6fPt2PHBmU03i7J4o9kwtT6jHDK+lZ9ukkLWVld5NiNGsw== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d9ca:0:b0:542:931e:2c56 with SMTP id b193-20020a0dd9ca000000b00542931e2c56mr27888451ywe.39.1680306545461; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 206-20020a8117d7000000b00545a0818491sm844980ywx.33.2023.03.31.16.49.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:49:04 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Glen Choo , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Elijah Newren Subject: Re: How do we review changes made with coccinelle? Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:13:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Glen Choo writes: > > > - Is it okay to give Reviewed-By on the basis of _just_ the in-tree > > changes and ignore the .cocci patch? > > If they were made in separate steps, sure. If not, not really. But > we can still say "I've checked the changes the author made to the > code and they looked good." But we haven't reviewed the patch in > its entirety in such a case to give a Reviewed-by, I would thihk. I think that while none of us would probably call ourselves "Coccinelle experts", we are probably reasonably capable of reviewing *.cocci files and their impact on the tree. What I meant when we were talking about this off-list was that I don't consider myself an expert at writing idiomatic Coccinelle rules. But I feel competent enough that I could review Ævar's patches by roughly grokking the *.cocci changes, and then checking that the resulting tree state matched my understanding of those changes. > > - Do we care about new patches slowing down coccicheck? I was the one who asked this question off-list, and I did so in a leading way that implied that the answer was "no". > Surely. But I agree with Junio that we *do* care about slowing down the performance of 'make coccicheck'. When I originally asked, I was under the (false) impression that we didn't run 'make coccicheck' in CI. But we do (see ci/run-static-analysis.sh), so we do care about the performance there since we don't want to unnecessarily slow down CI. Thanks, Taylor