Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: irqf_oneshot.cocci: Improve the generated commit log
Dne 25.5.2015 v 14:30 Valentin Rothberg napsal(a): > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: >> Valentin? (It's his semantic patch) >> >> julia >> >> On Sun, 24 May 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> >>> From: Fabio Estevam >>> >>> Improve the commit log of the generated patch by mentioning the commit >>> log that makes threaded IRQs without a primary handler to be requested >>> with the IRQF_ONESHOT flag. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam > Acked- by: Valentin Rothberg Thanks, applied to kbuild.git#misc. Michal ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: irqf_oneshot.cocci: Improve the generated commit log
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Valentin? (It's his semantic patch)
>
> julia
>
> On Sun, 24 May 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>
>> From: Fabio Estevam
>>
>> Improve the commit log of the generated patch by mentioning the commit
>> log that makes threaded IRQs without a primary handler to be requested
>> with the IRQF_ONESHOT flag.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam
>> ---
>> scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci | 7 +--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci
>> b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci
>> index b17ac8b..b421150 100644
>> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci
>> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/irqf_oneshot.cocci
>> @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@
>> -/// Make sure threaded IRQs without a primary handler are always requested
>> with
>> -/// IRQF_ONESHOT
>> +/// Since commit 1c6c69525b40 ("genirq: Reject bogus threaded irq requests")
>> +/// threaded IRQs without a primary handler need to be requested with
>> +/// IRQF_ONESHOT, otherwise the request will fail.
>> +///
>> +/// So pass the IRQF_ONESHOT flag in this case.
>> ///
>> //
>> // Confidence: Good
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
Acked- by: Valentin Rothberg
Kind regards,
Valentin
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
[Cocci] [PATCH 1/2] coccinelle: clk_put.cocci: Adjust commit log of generated patch
The commit log should better describe the action that the patch will do. In this case we are 'adding' the missing clk_put. Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam --- scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci index 46747ad..492b3b0 100644 --- a/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/// Find missing clk_puts. +/// Add missing clk_put. /// //# This only signals a missing clk_put when there is a clk_put later //# in the same function. -- 1.9.1 ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
[Cocci] [PATCH 2/2] coccinelle: pci_free_consistent.cocci: Adjust commit log of generated patch
The commit log should better describe the action that the patch will do. In this case we are 'adding' the pci_free_consistent. Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam --- scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci index 43600cc..82b3e44 100644 --- a/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/// Find missing pci_free_consistent for every pci_alloc_consistent. +/// Add missing pci_free_consistent for every pci_alloc_consistent. /// // Confidence: Moderate // Copyright: (C) 2013 Petr Strnad. GPLv2. -- 1.9.1 ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 2/2] coccinelle: pci_free_consistent.cocci: Adjust commit log of generated patch
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote: > The commit log should better describe the action that the patch will do. > > In this case we are 'adding' the pci_free_consistent. Not sure to follow the reasoning. The semantic patch doesn't add anything. julia > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam > --- > scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci > b/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci > index 43600cc..82b3e44 100644 > --- a/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/// Find missing pci_free_consistent for every pci_alloc_consistent. > +/// Add missing pci_free_consistent for every pci_alloc_consistent. > /// > // Confidence: Moderate > // Copyright: (C) 2013 Petr Strnad. GPLv2. > -- > 1.9.1 > > ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/2] coccinelle: clk_put.cocci: Adjust commit log of generated patch
On Mon, 25 May 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote: > The commit log should better describe the action that the patch will do. > > In this case we are 'adding' the missing clk_put. Here too, the semantic patch doesn't add anything. julia > Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam > --- > scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci > b/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci > index 46747ad..492b3b0 100644 > --- a/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/free/clk_put.cocci > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/// Find missing clk_puts. > +/// Add missing clk_put. > /// > //# This only signals a missing clk_put when there is a clk_put later > //# in the same function. > -- > 1.9.1 > > ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 2/2] coccinelle: pci_free_consistent.cocci: Adjust commit log of generated patch
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote: > >> The commit log should better describe the action that the patch will do. >> >> In this case we are 'adding' the pci_free_consistent. > > Not sure to follow the reasoning. The semantic patch doesn't add > anything. Right, the semantich patch finds the missing pci_free_consistent, but the generated patch is not finding pci_free_consistent. It is actually adding the missing pci_free_consistent instead. So in the commit log of the generated patch, we should better use 'add' instead of 'find'. Regards, Fabio Estevam ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 2/2] coccinelle: pci_free_consistent.cocci: Adjust commit log of generated patch
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: >> On Mon, 25 May 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> >>> The commit log should better describe the action that the patch will do. >>> >>> In this case we are 'adding' the pci_free_consistent. >> >> Not sure to follow the reasoning. The semantic patch doesn't add >> anything. > > Right, the semantich patch finds the missing pci_free_consistent, but > the generated patch is not finding pci_free_consistent. It is actually > adding the missing pci_free_consistent instead. > > So in the commit log of the generated patch, we should better use > 'add' instead of 'find'. Ok, I understood it new. It is really just detecting the missing free calls. Please discard these two patches. ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] Added tables i2c_device_id and platform_device_id for checking. Extend checking on tables containing structures which are initialized without specifying member name.
On Tue, 19 May 2015, Daniel Granat wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Granat
> ---
> scripts/coccinelle/misc/of_table.cocci | 26 +-
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/of_table.cocci
> b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/of_table.cocci
> index 3c93404..74f7dbb 100644
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/of_table.cocci
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/of_table.cocci
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> -/// Make sure of_device_id tables are NULL terminated
> +/// Make sure (of_device_id | i2c_device_id | platform_device_id) tables are
> NULL terminated
> //
> -// Keywords: of_table
> +// Keywords: of_table i2c_table platform_table
> // Confidence: Medium
> // Options: --include-headers
>
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ virtual report
> identifier var, arr;
> expression E;
> @@
> -struct of_device_id arr[] = {
> +struct \(of_device_id \| i2c_device_id \| platform_device_id\) arr[] = {
> ...,
> {
> .var = E,
This case (the context case) needs a ..., E, ... case like the patch rule
has.
> @@ -24,7 +24,8 @@ struct of_device_id arr[] = {
> identifier var, arr;
> expression E;
> @@
> -struct of_device_id arr[] = {
> +(
> +struct \(of_device_id \| i2c_device_id \| platform_device_id\) arr[] = {
> ...,
> {
> .var = E,
> @@ -32,19 +33,34 @@ struct of_device_id arr[] = {
> +},
> +{ }
> };
> +|
> +struct \(of_device_id \| i2c_device_id \| platform_device_id\) arr[] = {
> + ...,
> + { ..., E, ... },
> ++{ },
> +};
> +)
>
> @r depends on org || report@
> position p1;
> identifier var, arr;
> expression E;
> @@
> -struct of_device_id arr[] = {
> +(
> +struct \(of_device_id \| i2c_device_id \| platform_device_id\) arr[] = {
> ...,
> {
> .var = E,
> }
> @p1
> };
> +|
> +struct \(of_device_id \| i2c_device_id \| platform_device_id\) arr[] = {
> + ...,
> + { ..., E, ... },
> + @p1
It is not a good idea to put the @p1 on the comma. The comma might not be
there, and if it is not there Coccinelle seems to crash. A more graceful
behavior would be for the rule simply not to match, since a comma that
isn't there doesn't have a position. In any case, if you put the @p1 on
the }, things are better.
I made the following test case, if you want to make a quick check of the
rule. All four options should give four results.
static const struct platform_device_id ab85xx_rtc_ids[] = {
{ "ab8500-rtc", (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8500_rtc_ops, },
{ "ab8540-rtc", (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8540_rtc_ops, },
};
static const struct platform_device_id ab85xx_rtc_ids[] = {
{ "ab8500-rtc", (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8500_rtc_ops, },
{ "ab8540-rtc", (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8540_rtc_ops, }
};
static const struct platform_device_id ab85xx_rtc_ids[] = {
{ .a = "ab8500-rtc", .b = (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8500_rtc_ops, },
{ .a = "ab8540-rtc", .b = (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8540_rtc_ops, },
};
static const struct platform_device_id ab85xx_rtc_ids[] = {
{ .a = "ab8500-rtc", .b = (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8500_rtc_ops, },
{ .a = "ab8540-rtc", .b = (kernel_ulong_t)&ab8540_rtc_ops, }
};
julia
> +};
> +)
>
> @script:python depends on org@
> p1 << r.p1;
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Packages for release 1.0.0
Hello Julia, 29 квітня 2015 о 21:16 +0200 Julia Lawall написав(-ла): > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Eliseo Martínez wrote: > > I’ve seen release 1.0.0 has been published recently. Congrats! > > Unfortunately, it seems distribution packages (at least those for Ubuntu) > > are still stuck on 1.0.0-rc23 (Oct 2014). > > Are there plans to update these? > > I could ping them, but I have already found a bug. I'll see if I can fix > it by Monday. I've packaged version 1.0.0-rc24 for Debian recently. Would packaging 1.0.0 be a regression compared to -rc24? Or should I go ahead and package it? Regards, Eugeniy Meshcheryakov signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Packages for release 1.0.0
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Eugeniy Meshcheryakov wrote: > Hello Julia, > > 29 квітня 2015 о 21:16 +0200 Julia Lawall написав(-ла): > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Eliseo Martínez wrote: > > > I’ve seen release 1.0.0 has been published recently. Congrats! > > > Unfortunately, it seems distribution packages (at least those for Ubuntu) > > > are still stuck on 1.0.0-rc23 (Oct 2014). > > > Are there plans to update these? > > > > I could ping them, but I have already found a bug. I'll see if I can fix > > it by Monday. > I've packaged version 1.0.0-rc24 for Debian recently. Would packaging > 1.0.0 be a regression compared to -rc24? Or should I go ahead and > package it? 1.0.0 would be an improvement. I don't think that the problem was a regressin as compared to rc24. Thanks. julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
