Re: [PATCH 4/4] scripts/coccinelle: require coccinelle >= 1.0.4 on device_node_continue.cocci

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:11:57PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:55:34PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:43:30AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > > How about the following, since Coccinelle knows what its version is?
> > > > > > This could of course be implemented in python as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > julia
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/docs/Coccilib.3cocci b/docs/Coccilib.3cocci
> > > > > > index 0e4fbb8..ca5b061 100644
> > > > > > --- a/docs/Coccilib.3cocci
> > > > > > +++ b/docs/Coccilib.3cocci
> > > > > > @@ -232,6 +232,15 @@ is the empty list if spatch is not currently working on any file (eg,
> > > > > >  in an initialize or finalize rule).
> > > > > >  .sp
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +.I val cocci_version
> > > > > > +:
> > > > > > +.B unit -> string
> > > > > > +.sp
> > > > > > +Returns the a string indicating the current version.  Note that if
> > > > > > +Coccinelle has been modified since a release, the version number will be
> > > > > > +postfixed with "-dirty".
> > > > > > +.sp
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  .I val print_main
> > > > > >  :
> > > > > >  .B ?color:string -> string -> pos list -> unit
> > > > > > diff --git a/ocaml/coccilib.ml b/ocaml/coccilib.ml
> > > > > > index f60c6b2..2f352d8 100644
> > > > > > --- a/ocaml/coccilib.ml
> > > > > > +++ b/ocaml/coccilib.ml
> > > > > > @@ -168,6 +168,8 @@ let dir () = !Flag.dir
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  let files () = !Flag.currentfiles
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +let cocci_version () = Config.version
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  (* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *)
> > > > > >  (* org mode *)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything to *only* get the version instead of a long list is nice, right now
> > > > > spatch --version spits out:
> > > > >
> > > > > spatch version 1.0.5 compiled with OCaml version 4.02.3
> > > > > Flags passed to the configure script: [none]
> > > > > Python scripting support: yes
> > > > > Syntax of regular expresssions: PCRE
> > > > >
> > > > > The Python library just parses the 3rd item at the top so it can extract
> > > > > the version. But surely if spatch --version-only was available we'd use
> > > > > that instead a well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Other than this though how can we require coccinelle version checks per
> > > > > SmPL file cleanly and also what should we do to make it backward compatible
> > > > > with older versions of coccinelle?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that being backward compatible with older versions of
> > > > Coccinelle is worth adding new libraries to the Linux kernel, and adding
> > > > unpleasant python code to semantic patches.
> > >
> > > True. I'm more than happy to not have to add this crap.
> > >
> > > > The above ocaml code just produces eg 1.0.5 or 1.0.5-dirty.  I could drop
> > > > the -dirty at the coccilib level, if that seems desirable.
> > >
> > > This is when spatch --cocci_version is passed ?
> >
> > Perhaps it wasn't clear enough from the above nroff and ocaml code.  I
> > added a function Coccilib.version() that returns eg either 1.0.5 or
> > 1.0.5-dirty.  Such a function could be implemented for python as well.
> >
> > >
> > > Its still unclear how we can require in a clean way coccinelle version
> > > requirements in SmPL patches with this. Can you clarify?
> >
> > Test the string that it returns and exit.  Like you are doing, but no need
> > for adding new libraries to the kernel.
>
> Ah then that's indeed welcome, however another function would be best too:
>
> Coccilib.version_reqs() which lets us say what the requirement is and it
> would return true or false, false when the req is not met.

I'm not so fond of this.  It seems like a very specific use case.

I really think this should be managed by coccicheck, in the same way as
the options.

julia