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: can: ucan: Use usb_endpoint_type() rather than duplicating its implementation
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 07:59:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c96a5d2c-0ee1-4e3e-a95d-d38a8f668feb@wanadoo.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a7a00125-b393-4283-a7dc-6c80ced8e7e6@web.de>
On 25/06/2025 at 03:28, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Looking at the helpers in linux/usb/ch9.h,
>
> Please take another look at known source code mappings.
>
> Passing code replacements by APIs (for SmPL)?
> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/481faa1d-7171-4657-8dc0-c37b153e6eaa@web.de/
> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/cocci/2025-06/msg00044.html
>
>
>> 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. Nor do I have the time to read and understand the Coccinelle source code
to which you pointed me to.
My stance is that such static analyzers should never be trusted 100%. The output
is more an indicator. And in this present case, a quick review made it very
clear that Coccinelle saw one simplification but missed two other ones.
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-24 22:59 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 [this message]
2025-06-25 5:47 ` [PATCH] " Markus Elfring
2025-06-25 15:51 ` Vincent Mailhol
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=c96a5d2c-0ee1-4e3e-a95d-d38a8f668feb@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