From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Chen Ni <nichen@iscas.ac.cn>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
linux-can@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: ucan: Use usb_endpoint_type() rather than duplicating its implementation
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:51:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c04376f2-6ab7-4256-8bdc-aa6ff3ea88b4@wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0768a008-d4a9-41ec-bc47-1e7c63362296@web.de>
On 25/06/2025 at 14:47, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>> it seems that Coccinelle missed many simplifications.
>>> Would such software transformations become better supported anyhow?
>> Maybe?
>>
>> I am not involved in the development of Coccinelle and thus, I don't have an answer.
>
> This can be fine (in principle).
>
>
>> Nor do I have the time to read and understand the Coccinelle source code
>> to which you pointed me to.
>
> I hope that more users can become interested in presented information.
> I would appreciate if knowledge representations can be improved also for
> better automatic data processing and corresponding transformations.
A real quick search shows me that this ucan driver is not an isolated case. Here
is an example:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc3/source/drivers/media/rc/imon.c#L2137-L2148
But it does not seem to occur so often either. So not sure what is the best: do
a manual hunt or write a coccinelle checker. I let you be judge here.
>> My stance is that such static analyzers should never be trusted 100%.
>
> This is generally fine.
>
>
>> The output is more an indicator.
>
> This is usual.
>
>
>> And in this present case, a quick review made it very
>> clear that Coccinelle saw one simplification but missed two other ones.
>
> Would you find another source code adjustment (like the following) more appropriate?
Yes. What you are proposing below is aligned with my initial comments.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c
> index 07406daf7c88..6c6cee3895c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c
> @@ -1352,17 +1352,12 @@ static int ucan_probe(struct usb_interface *intf,
> for (i = 0; i < iface_desc->desc.bNumEndpoints; i++) {
> ep = &iface_desc->endpoint[i].desc;
>
> - if (((ep->bEndpointAddress & USB_ENDPOINT_DIR_MASK) != 0) &&
> - ((ep->bmAttributes & USB_ENDPOINT_XFERTYPE_MASK) ==
> - USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK)) {
> + if (usb_endpoint_dir_in(ep) && usb_endpoint_xfer_bulk(ep)) {
> /* In Endpoint */
^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe just remove this comment. After migrating to usb_endpoint_dir_in(ep), this
comment is just paraphrasing the code and has no more reasons to stay.
> in_ep_addr = ep->bEndpointAddress;
> in_ep_addr &= USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
> in_ep_size = le16_to_cpu(ep->wMaxPacketSize);
> - } else if (((ep->bEndpointAddress & USB_ENDPOINT_DIR_MASK) ==
> - 0) &&
> - ((ep->bmAttributes & USB_ENDPOINT_XFERTYPE_MASK) ==
> - USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK)) {
> + } else if (usb_endpoint_dir_out(ep) && usb_endpoint_xfer_bulk(ep)) {
> /* Out Endpoint */
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Same.
> out_ep_addr = ep->bEndpointAddress;
> out_ep_addr &= USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
>
>
> Can the functions “usb_endpoint_is_bulk_in” and “usb_endpoint_is_bulk_out”
> be applied here?
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc3/source/include/uapi/linux/usb/ch9.h#L572-L595
Further simplification, nice :)
I didn't see that last one, so glad you found what seems to be the optimal solution!
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-25 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-24 17:12 [PATCH] can: ucan: Use usb_endpoint_type() rather than duplicating its implementation Markus Elfring
2025-06-24 17:29 ` Vincent Mailhol
2025-06-24 18:28 ` Markus Elfring
2025-06-24 22:59 ` Vincent Mailhol
2025-06-25 5:47 ` [PATCH] " Markus Elfring
2025-06-25 15:51 ` Vincent Mailhol [this message]
2025-06-25 16:23 ` Markus Elfring
2025-06-26 2:47 ` Vincent Mailhol
2025-06-26 7:22 ` Markus Elfring
2025-06-26 9:23 ` Vincent Mailhol
2025-06-26 14:46 ` [PATCH v2] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations Markus Elfring
2025-06-26 14:50 ` Vincent Mailhol
2025-06-26 15:06 ` Marc Kleine-Budde
2025-06-26 15:17 ` [v2] " Markus Elfring
2025-06-24 19:21 ` [PATCH] can: ucan: Use usb_endpoint_type() rather than duplicating its implementation Markus Elfring
2025-06-24 23:03 ` Vincent Mailhol
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c04376f2-6ab7-4256-8bdc-aa6ff3ea88b4@wanadoo.fr \
--to=mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=nichen@iscas.ac.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox