On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:20:14PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On 14/06/2016 10:57, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/return_directly.cocci > >>> b/scripts/coccinelle/return_directly.cocci > >>> > new file mode 100644 > >>> > index 0000000..c52f4fc > >>> > --- /dev/null > >>> > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/return_directly.cocci > >>> > @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ > >>> > +// replace 'R = X; return R;' with 'return R;' > >>> > + > >>> > +// remove assignment > >> Second comment feels redundant. Can drop on commit to error-next. > >> > >>> > +@ removal @ > >> Rule name "removal" is not used. Can drop on commit to error-next. > >> > > > > I've seen rule names used as a comment. Feels a bit like COBOL, but it > > doesn't hurt. Perhaps rename it to "@ return_directly @"? > > No objection. However, the existing semantic patches in > scripts/coccinelle/ don't do that. You guys tell me what to do with > this one.
I think rule names are just noise if the script has only a single transformation. In this specific case, the comment and the rule name were kept by mistake. -- Eduardo