Re: [Cocci] [PATCH V2] kernel/hung_task.c: Introduce sysctl to print all traces when a hung task is detected
On 3/24/20 7:20 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:45:40AM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote: >> Thanks Randy and Vlastimil for the comments. I really liked your >> approach Vlastimil, I agree that we have no reason to not have a generic >> sysctl setting via cmdline mechanism - I'll rework this patch removing >> the kernel parameter (same for other patch I just submitted). > > I've been thinking we'll likely want to have a big patch series that > removes all the old "duplicate" boot params and adds some kind of > "alias" mechanism. > > Vlastimil, have you happened to keep a list of other "redundant" boot > params you've noticed in the kernel? I bet there are a lot. :) Well, I found about 4 that mentioned sysctl in Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt I suspect there will be more, but won't be trivial to identify them. ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 4/8] mmap locking API: convert mmap_sem call sites missed by coccinelle
On 03/26/20 at 02:41pm, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Convert the last few remaining mmap_sem rwsem calls to use the new > > mmap locking API. These were missed by coccinelle for some reason > > I find such a software situation unfortunate. > Should the transformation approach be clarified any further? Should be this one: Documentation/dev-tools/coccinelle.rst ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 4/8] mmap locking API: convert mmap_sem call sites missed by coccinelle
> Convert the last few remaining mmap_sem rwsem calls to use the new > mmap locking API. These were missed by coccinelle for some reason I find such a software situation unfortunate. Should the transformation approach be clarified any further? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Determination of failure predicates for selected function calls with SmPL?
>> I have noticed the patch “tty: serial: fsl_lpuart: fix return value >> checking”. >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-serial/20200325090658.25967-2-mich...@walle.cc/ … > I'm not sure what there is to clarify. One can surely write rules that > find this kind of problem, with a varying rate of false positives. Will further changes become more interesting also according to other development approaches you care for? * Prequel http://prequel-pql.gforge.inria.fr/ * Machine learning for software corrections https://hal.inria.fr/hal-02373994 https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2019.2952614 Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
