From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: api: check for propagation of error from platform_get_irq Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:58:33 +0100 Message-ID: <567F9A29.50202@users.sourceforge.net> References: <1451157891-24881-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <567EF188.7020203@cogentembedded.com> <567EF895.6080702@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Coccinelle , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Gilles Muller , Michal Marek , Nicolas Palix , Sergei Shtylyov To: Julia Lawall Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-janitors-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org > The error return value of platform_get_irq seems to often get dropped= =2E How do you think about any more fine-tuning here? Commit message: * =85 of the platform_get_irq() function seems to get dropped too often= =2E * Why do you concentrate on a single function name? Do you plan to extend this source code analysis approach? > +@script:python r_report depends on report@ > +j0 << r.j0; > +j1 << r.j1; > +@@ > + > +msg =3D "Propagate return value of platform_get_irq around line %s."= % (j1[0].line) Are there more unchecked return values which are interesting for further considerations? https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/252.html Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janito= rs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html