On 8/14/20 3:30 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> You propose to use a nested SmPL disjunction for desired adjustments.
>>> I suggest to start a corresponding case distinction behind
>>> the key word “return” instead of repeating it three times.
>>
>> It doesn't work.
>
> How do you think about to apply a SmPL rule variant like the following?
>
> @rp depends on patch@
> identifier show, dev, attr, buf;
> constant str;
> @@
>
> ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> {
> <...
> return
> (
> - snprintf
> + sprintf
> (
> buf,
> - \(PAGE_SIZE\|PAGE_SIZE - 1\),
> ( str
> |
> ( "%i"\|"%i\n"\|"%li"\|"%li\n"\|"%lli"\|"%lli\n"\|
> "%d"\|"%d\n"\|"%ld"\|"%ld\n"\|"%lld"\|"%lld\n"\|
> "%u"\|"%u\n"\|"%lu"\|"%lu\n"\|"%llu"\|"%llu\n"\|
> "%x"\|"%x\n"\|"%lx"\|"%lx\n"\|"%llx"\|"%llx\n"\|
> "%X"\|"%X\n"\|"%lX"\|"%lX\n"\|"%llX"\|"%llX\n"\|
>
> "0x%x"\|"0x%x\n"\|"0x%lx"\|"0x%lx\n"\|"0x%llx"\|"0x%llx\n"\|
>
> "0x%X"\|"0x%X\n"\|"0x%lX"\|"0x%lX\n"\|"0x%llX"\|"0x%llX\n"\|
> "%02x\n"\|"%03x\n"\|"%04x\n"\|"%08x\n"\|
> "%02X\n"\|"%03X\n"\|"%04X\n"\|"%08X\n"\|
> "0x%02x\n"\|"0x%03x\n"\|"0x%04x\n"\|"0x%08x\n"\|
> "0x%02X\n"\|"0x%03X\n"\|"0x%04X\n"\|"0x%08X\n"\|
> "%zd"\|"%zd\n"\|"%zu"\|"%zu\n"\|"%zx"\|"%zx\n"\|
> "%c"\|"%c\n"\|"%p"\|"%p\n"\|"%pU\n"\|"%pUl\n"\|"%hu\n"
> ) ,
> ...
> )
> )
> |
> - snprintf
> + scnprintf
> (...)
> );
> ...>
> }
>
3 levels of nested disjunctions makes this pattern completely unreadable
and gives no comparable benefits. I don't think we should care much about
number of characters in the kernel sources, gzip will do a better job
anyway.
Thanks,
Denis
