From: Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com>
To: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: mmarek@suse.com, Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
nicolas.palix@imag.fr, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: misc: Improve the script for more accurate results
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:54:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5800CE8D.5080206@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66694ba2-9108-b400-e412-d9927f593e16@metafoo.de>
On Friday 14 October 2016 02:21 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 07:01 PM, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 13 October 2016 09:45 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently because of the left associativity of the operators,
>>>> pattern IRQF_ONESHOT | flags does not match with the pattern
>>>> when we have more than one flag after the disjunction. This
>>>> eventually results in giving false positives by the script.
>>>> The patch eliminates these FPs by improving the rule.
>>>>
>>>> Also, add a new rule to eliminate the false positives given by
>>>> the new line issue.
>>>>
>>>> Misc:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Add support for the context, org and report mode in the case
>>>> of devm_request_threaded_irq
>>>> 2. To be consistent with other scripts, change the confidence
>>>> level to 'Moderate'
>>>
>>> I'm getting a lot more reports for context mode than for patch mode, eg
>>> for sound/pcmcia/vx/vxpocket.c. Is this normal?
>>
>> This seems to be because of the ... in '*request_threaded_irq@p(...)'.
>> Usually I think we should have same rules for the patch and context mode.
>> But the original code does not do that. So, I was not sure if that was
>> intentional or not.
>> [just in case, person wants to check all cases of these functions using
>> context mode]
>
> To be honest, I don't remember if it was intentional or not. But looking at
> it now, I'd say context mode should use the same pattern as the report mode.
> The way it is right now context mode certainly generates a fair amount of
> false positives.
>
> As for your patch I'd say split this into multiple patches, one patch to add
> the missing devm_ variants to the context and report mode and one patch to
> improve the matching, since these are two independent changes.
Sure. I'll send the revised version with 3 patches. One more with changing
the rule of context mode.
>
--
Vaishali
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-14 12:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-13 10:28 [PATCH] Coccinelle: misc: Improve the script for more accurate results Vaishali Thakkar
2016-10-13 16:15 ` Julia Lawall
2016-10-13 17:01 ` Vaishali Thakkar
2016-10-14 8:51 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2016-10-14 12:24 ` Vaishali Thakkar [this message]
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=5800CE8D.5080206@oracle.com \
--to=vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com \
--cc=Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.com \
--cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
/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