On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/22/2018 11:51 AM, Max Filippov wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Re-run Coccinelle script scripts/coccinelle/return_directly.cocci >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> target/xtensa/core-dc232b/xtensa-modules.c | 56 >>> ++++++---------------- >>> target/xtensa/core-dc233c/xtensa-modules.c | 56 >>> ++++++---------------- >>> target/xtensa/core-de212/xtensa-modules.c | 48 >>> +++++-------------- >>> target/xtensa/core-fsf/xtensa-modules.c | 32 ++++--------- >>> .../xtensa/core-sample_controller/xtensa-modules.c | 24 +++------- >> >> >> These files were autogenerated, fixing them doesn't make much sense. > > > How frequently is the generator rerun? Is it something where we are likely > to revert the change because it needs to be rerun soon? If so, then is it > worth fixing the generator to output more concise code?
They were generated once and are not supposed to be regenerated. > Conversely, if they were generated up front, but likely to remain unchanged > into the future, then fixing them (even though the fix differs from the > generator) will mean they no longer show up as false positives in future > runs of the Coccinelle script. Ok. > I'm also fine removing the changes to these files as part of preparing the > PULL request, if that's what you would prefer. The changes are fine, if they make maintenance easier they should stay. -- Thanks. -- Max
