On 2/18/20 6:56 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/as_rw_const.cocci
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+// Avoid uses of address_space_rw() with a constant is_write argument.
+// Usage:
+// spatch --sp-file as-rw-const.spatch --dir . --in-place
Nitpick, script is now scripts/coccinelle/as_rw_const.cocci.
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
+
+@@
+expression E1, E2, E3, E4, E5;
+symbol false;
+@@
+
+- address_space_rw(E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, false)
++ address_space_read(E1, E2, E3, E4, E5)
+@@
+expression E1, E2, E3, E4, E5;
+@@
+
+- address_space_rw(E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, 0)
++ address_space_read(E1, E2, E3, E4, E5)
This feels a bit redundant. Doesn't coccinelle have enough smarts about
isomorphisms (such as 0 == false, 1 == true) that it could get by with
one @@ hunk instead of 2, if we come up with the right way to represent
any isomorphism to a constant value? But admittedly, I don't know what
that representation would actually be, and your verbose patch works even
if it is not the most concise possible. So don't let my remarks hold
this patch up.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
