Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:43:58PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Jarkko Sakkinen writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > >> > > Constify local structures. > > >> > > > > >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > >> > > > >> > Just my two cents but: > > >> > > > >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > > >> >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > > >> >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test > > >> > changes > > >> >somehow. > > >> > > > >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > >> > > >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > > > > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > > > you should explain why. > > > > Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and > > nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation > > that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound. > > > > Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional > > changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any > > problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build > > errors or warnings. > > > > Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about > > Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by > > Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits. > > > > You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water. > > Hmm... I've been using coccinelle in cyclic basis for some time now. > My comment was oversized but I didn't mean it to be impolite or attack > of any kind for that matter. No problem :) Thanks for the feedback. julia ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:43:58PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > Jarkko Sakkinen writes: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> > > Constify local structures. > >> > > > >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > >> > > >> > Just my two cents but: > >> > > >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > >> >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > >> >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test > >> > changes > >> >somehow. > >> > > >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > >> > >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > > you should explain why. > > Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and > nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation > that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound. > > Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional > changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any > problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build > errors or warnings. > > Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about > Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by > Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits. > > You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water. Hmm... I've been using coccinelle in cyclic basis for some time now. My comment was oversized but I didn't mean it to be impolite or attack of any kind for that matter. > -- > balbi /Jarkko ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:52:08PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > Jarkko Sakkinen writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > >> > > Constify local structures. > > >> > > > > >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > >> > > > >> > Just my two cents but: > > >> > > > >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > > >> >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > > >> >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test > > >> > changes > > >> >somehow. > > >> > > > >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > >> > > >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > > > > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > > > you should explain why. > > > > Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and > > nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation > > that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound. > > > > Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional > > changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any > > problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build > > errors or warnings. > > > > Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about > > Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by > > Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits. > > > > You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water. > > Thanks for the defense, but since a lot of these patches torned out to be > wrong, due to an incorrect parse by Coccinelle, combined with an > unpleasantly lax compiler, Jarkko does have a point that I should have > looked at the patches more carefully. In any case, I have written to the > maintainers relevant to the patches that turned out to be incorrect. Exactly. I'm not excepting that every commit would require extensive analysis but it would be good to quickly at least skim through commits and see if they make sense (or ask if unsure) :) And I'm fine with compile testing if it is mentioned in the commit msg. > julia /Jarkko ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Felipe Balbi
wrote:
> Jarkko Sakkinen writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> > > Constify local structures.
>>> > >
>>> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
>>> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>>> >
>>> > Just my two cents but:
>>> >
>>> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
>>> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
>>> >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
>>> >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test
>>> > changes
>>> >somehow.
>>> >
>>> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
>>> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
>>>
>>> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
>>
>> Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit,
>> you should explain why.
>
> Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and
> nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation
> that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound.
+1
> Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional
> changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any
> problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build
> errors or warnings.
Unfortunately in this particular case they could lead to failures that can only
be detected at runtime, when failing o write to a read-only piece of memory,
due to the casting away of the constness of the pointers later.
Fortunately this was detected during code review (doh...).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > Jarkko Sakkinen writes: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > >> > > Constify local structures. > >> > > > >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > >> > > >> > Just my two cents but: > >> > > >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > >> >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > >> >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test > >> > changes > >> >somehow. > >> > > >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > >> > >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > > you should explain why. > > Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and > nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation > that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound. > > Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional > changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any > problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build > errors or warnings. > > Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about > Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by > Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits. > > You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water. Thanks for the defense, but since a lot of these patches torned out to be wrong, due to an incorrect parse by Coccinelle, combined with an unpleasantly lax compiler, Jarkko does have a point that I should have looked at the patches more carefully. In any case, I have written to the maintainers relevant to the patches that turned out to be incorrect. julia ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
Hi, Jarkko Sakkinen writes: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> > > Constify local structures. >> > > >> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: >> > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) >> > >> > Just my two cents but: >> > >> > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. >> > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit >> >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think >> >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes >> >somehow. >> > >> > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should >> > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. >> >> All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > you should explain why. Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound. Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build errors or warnings. Really, just stop with the pointless discussion and go read a bit about Coccinelle and what semantic patches are giving you. The work done by Julia and her peers are INRIA have measurable benefits. You're really making a thunderstorm in a glass of water. -- balbi signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > Constify local structures. > > > > > > > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > > > > > Just my two cents but: > > > > > > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > > >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > > >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test > > > changes > > >somehow. > > > > > > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > > > All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are > > Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, > you should explain why. > > > submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages > > give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the > > structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover > > letter, which will not be committed anyway. > > I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process > *that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to > explain that but it depends on the context). > > I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this > particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can > be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient. > Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals. OK, thanks for the feedback. julia ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > Constify local structures. > > > > > > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: > > > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > > > Just my two cents but: > > > > 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues. > > 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit > >messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think > >that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes > >somehow. > > > > I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should > > also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches. > > All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, you should explain why. > submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages > give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the > structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover > letter, which will not be committed anyway. I don't mean to be harsh but I do not care about your thought process *that much* when I review a commit (sometimes it might make sense to explain that but it depends on the context). I mostly only care why a particular change makes sense for this particular subsystem. The report given by a static analysis tool can be a starting point for making a commit but it's not sufficient. Based on the report you should look subsystems as individuals. > julia /Jarkko ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Constify local structures.
> >
> > The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>
> Just my two cents but:
>
> 1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
> 2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
>messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
>that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
>somehow.
>
> I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
> also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
submitted to the relevant maintainers. The individual commit messages
give a more detailed explanation of the strategy used to decide that the
structure was constifiable. It seemed redundant to put that in the cover
letter, which will not be committed anyway.
julia
>
> Anyway, I'll apply the TPM change at some point. As I said they were
> for better. Thanks.
>
> /Jarkko
>
> > //
> > // The first rule ignores some cases that posed problems
> > @r disable optional_qualifier@
> > identifier s != {peri_clk_data,threshold_attr,tracer_flags,tracer};
> > identifier i != {s5k5baf_cis_rect,smtcfb_fix};
> > position p;
> > @@
> > static struct s i@p = { ... };
> >
> > @lstruct@
> > identifier r.s;
> > @@
> > struct s { ... };
> >
> > @used depends on lstruct@
> > identifier r.i;
> > @@
> > i
> >
> > @bad1@
> > expression e;
> > identifier r.i;
> > assignment operator a;
> > @@
> > (<+...i...+>) a e
> >
> > @bad2@
> > identifier r.i;
> > @@
> > &(<+...i...+>)
> >
> > @bad3@
> > identifier r.i;
> > declarer d;
> > @@
> > d(...,<+...i...+>,...);
> >
> > @bad4@
> > identifier r.i;
> > type T;
> > T[] e;
> > identifier f;
> > position p;
> > @@
> >
> > f@p(...,
> > (
> > (<+...i...+>)
> > &
> > e
> > )
> > ,...)
> >
> > @bad4a@
> > identifier r.i;
> > type T;
> > T *e;
> > identifier f;
> > position p;
> > @@
> >
> > f@p(...,
> > (
> > (<+...i...+>)
> > &
> > e
> > )
> > ,...)
> >
> > @ok5@
> > expression *e;
> > identifier r.i;
> > position p;
> > @@
> > e =@p i
> >
> > @bad5@
> > expression *e;
> > identifier r.i;
> > position p != ok5.p;
> > @@
> > e =@p (<+...i...+>)
> >
> > @rr depends on used && !bad1 && !bad2 && !bad3 && !bad4 && !bad4a && !bad5@
> > identifier s,r.i;
> > position r.p;
> > @@
> >
> > static
> > +const
> > struct s i@p = { ... };
> >
> > @depends on used && !bad1 && !bad2 && !bad3 && !bad4 && !bad4a && !bad5
> > disable optional_qualifier@
> > identifier rr.s,r.i;
> > @@
> >
> > static
> > +const
> > struct s i;
> > //
> >
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c |8 +++---
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 10
> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c |2 -
> > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |8 +++---
> > drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_uk.c |6 ++---
> > drivers/media/i2c/tvp514x.c |2 -
> > drivers/media/pci/ddbridge/ddbridge-core.c | 18 +++
> > drivers/media/pci/ngene/ngene-cards.c| 14 ++--
> > drivers/media/pci/smipcie/smipcie-main.c |8 +++---
> > drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/arcnet/com20020-pci.c| 10
> > drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_pci.c|4 +--
> > drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c| 20
> > -
> > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c|4 +--
> > drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_main.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c| 14 ++--
> > drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pci.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/dfs_pattern_detector.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/3945.c |4 +--
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192ce/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192ee/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192se/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8723ae/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8821ae/sw.c |2 -
> > drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_laptop.c| 22
> > +--
> > drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c |6 ++---
> > drivers/platform/x86/intel_telemetry_debugfs.c |2 -
> > drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_flash.c |2 -
> > drive
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 15:05 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Constify local structures.
>
> Thanks Julia.
>
> A few suggestions & questions:
>
> Perhaps the script should go into scripts/coccinelle/
> so that future cases could be caught by the robot
> and commit message referenced by the patch instances.
OK.
> Can you please compile the files modified using the
> appropriate defconfig/allyesconfig and show the
I currently send patches for this issue only for files that compile using
the x86 allyesconfig.
> movement from data to const by using
> $ size .new/old
> and include that in the changelogs (maybe next time)?
OK, thanks for the suggestion.
> Is it possible for a rule to trace the instances where
> an address of a struct or struct member is taken by
> locally defined and declared function call where the
> callee does not modify any dereferenced object?
>
> ie:
>
> struct foo {
> int bar;
> char *baz;
> };
>
> struct foo qux[] = {
> { 1, "description 1" },
> { 2, "dewcription 2" },
> [ n, "etc" ]...,
> };
>
> void message(struct foo *msg)
> {
> printk("%d %s\n", msg->bar, msg->baz);
> }
>
> where some code uses
>
> message(qux[index]);
>
> So could a coccinelle script change:
>
> struct foo qux[] = { to const struct foo quz[] = {
>
> and
>
> void message(struct foo *msg) to void message(const struct foo *msg)
Yes, this could be possible too.
Thanks for the feedback.
julia
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Sun, 2016-09-11 at 15:05 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Constify local structures.
Thanks Julia.
A few suggestions & questions:
Perhaps the script should go into scripts/coccinelle/
so that future cases could be caught by the robot
and commit message referenced by the patch instances.
Can you please compile the files modified using the
appropriate defconfig/allyesconfig and show the
movement from data to const by using
$ size .new/old
and include that in the changelogs (maybe next time)?
Is it possible for a rule to trace the instances where
an address of a struct or struct member is taken by
locally defined and declared function call where the
callee does not modify any dereferenced object?
ie:
struct foo {
int bar;
char *baz;
};
struct foo qux[] = {
{ 1, "description 1" },
{ 2, "dewcription 2" },
[ n, "etc" ]...,
};
void message(struct foo *msg)
{
printk("%d %s\n", msg->bar, msg->baz);
}
where some code uses
message(qux[index]);
So could a coccinelle script change:
struct foo qux[] = { to const struct foo quz[] = {
and
void message(struct foo *msg) to void message(const struct foo *msg)
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> Constify local structures.
>
> The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
Just my two cents but:
1. You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
2. However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit
messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think
that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes
somehow.
I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should
also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
Anyway, I'll apply the TPM change at some point. As I said they were
for better. Thanks.
/Jarkko
> //
> // The first rule ignores some cases that posed problems
> @r disable optional_qualifier@
> identifier s != {peri_clk_data,threshold_attr,tracer_flags,tracer};
> identifier i != {s5k5baf_cis_rect,smtcfb_fix};
> position p;
> @@
> static struct s i@p = { ... };
>
> @lstruct@
> identifier r.s;
> @@
> struct s { ... };
>
> @used depends on lstruct@
> identifier r.i;
> @@
> i
>
> @bad1@
> expression e;
> identifier r.i;
> assignment operator a;
> @@
> (<+...i...+>) a e
>
> @bad2@
> identifier r.i;
> @@
> &(<+...i...+>)
>
> @bad3@
> identifier r.i;
> declarer d;
> @@
> d(...,<+...i...+>,...);
>
> @bad4@
> identifier r.i;
> type T;
> T[] e;
> identifier f;
> position p;
> @@
>
> f@p(...,
> (
> (<+...i...+>)
> &
> e
> )
> ,...)
>
> @bad4a@
> identifier r.i;
> type T;
> T *e;
> identifier f;
> position p;
> @@
>
> f@p(...,
> (
> (<+...i...+>)
> &
> e
> )
> ,...)
>
> @ok5@
> expression *e;
> identifier r.i;
> position p;
> @@
> e =@p i
>
> @bad5@
> expression *e;
> identifier r.i;
> position p != ok5.p;
> @@
> e =@p (<+...i...+>)
>
> @rr depends on used && !bad1 && !bad2 && !bad3 && !bad4 && !bad4a && !bad5@
> identifier s,r.i;
> position r.p;
> @@
>
> static
> +const
> struct s i@p = { ... };
>
> @depends on used && !bad1 && !bad2 && !bad3 && !bad4 && !bad4a && !bad5
> disable optional_qualifier@
> identifier rr.s,r.i;
> @@
>
> static
> +const
> struct s i;
> //
>
> ---
>
> drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c |8 +++---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 10
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c |2 -
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |8 +++---
> drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_uk.c |6 ++---
> drivers/media/i2c/tvp514x.c |2 -
> drivers/media/pci/ddbridge/ddbridge-core.c | 18 +++
> drivers/media/pci/ngene/ngene-cards.c| 14 ++--
> drivers/media/pci/smipcie/smipcie-main.c |8 +++---
> drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c |2 -
> drivers/net/arcnet/com20020-pci.c| 10
> drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_pci.c|4 +--
> drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c| 20 -
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c|4 +--
> drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_main.c |2 -
> drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c| 14 ++--
> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pci.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/dfs_pattern_detector.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/3945.c |4 +--
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192ce/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192ee/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192se/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8723ae/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8821ae/sw.c |2 -
> drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_laptop.c| 22
> +--
> drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c |6 ++---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel_telemetry_debugfs.c |2 -
> drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_flash.c |2 -
> drivers/scsi/hptiop.c|6 ++---
> drivers/spi/spi-dw-pci.c |4 +--
> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c |2 -
> drivers/usb/misc/ezusb.c |2 -
> drivers/video/fbdev/matrox/matroxfb_g450.c |2 -
> lib/crc64_ecma.c |2 -
> sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c |2 -
> sound/pci/hda/patch_ca0132.c | 10
> sound/pci/riptide/riptide.c |2 -
> 40 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)
_
[PATCH 00/26] constify local structures
Constify local structures.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
//
// The first rule ignores some cases that posed problems
@r disable optional_qualifier@
identifier s != {peri_clk_data,threshold_attr,tracer_flags,tracer};
identifier i != {s5k5baf_cis_rect,smtcfb_fix};
position p;
@@
static struct s i@p = { ... };
@lstruct@
identifier r.s;
@@
struct s { ... };
@used depends on lstruct@
identifier r.i;
@@
i
@bad1@
expression e;
identifier r.i;
assignment operator a;
@@
(<+...i...+>) a e
@bad2@
identifier r.i;
@@
&(<+...i...+>)
@bad3@
identifier r.i;
declarer d;
@@
d(...,<+...i...+>,...);
@bad4@
identifier r.i;
type T;
T[] e;
identifier f;
position p;
@@
f@p(...,
(
(<+...i...+>)
&
e
)
,...)
@bad4a@
identifier r.i;
type T;
T *e;
identifier f;
position p;
@@
f@p(...,
(
(<+...i...+>)
&
e
)
,...)
@ok5@
expression *e;
identifier r.i;
position p;
@@
e =@p i
@bad5@
expression *e;
identifier r.i;
position p != ok5.p;
@@
e =@p (<+...i...+>)
@rr depends on used && !bad1 && !bad2 && !bad3 && !bad4 && !bad4a && !bad5@
identifier s,r.i;
position r.p;
@@
static
+const
struct s i@p = { ... };
@depends on used && !bad1 && !bad2 && !bad3 && !bad4 && !bad4a && !bad5
disable optional_qualifier@
identifier rr.s,r.i;
@@
static
+const
struct s i;
//
---
drivers/acpi/acpi_apd.c |8 +++---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 10
drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c |2 -
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |8 +++---
drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_uk.c |6 ++---
drivers/media/i2c/tvp514x.c |2 -
drivers/media/pci/ddbridge/ddbridge-core.c | 18 +++
drivers/media/pci/ngene/ngene-cards.c| 14 ++--
drivers/media/pci/smipcie/smipcie-main.c |8 +++---
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c |2 -
drivers/net/arcnet/com20020-pci.c| 10
drivers/net/can/c_can/c_can_pci.c|4 +--
drivers/net/can/sja1000/plx_pci.c| 20 -
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c|4 +--
drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_main.c |2 -
drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c| 14 ++--
drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_pci.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/ath/dfs_pattern_detector.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/3945.c |4 +--
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8188ee/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192ce/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192ee/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192se/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8723ae/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8723be/sw.c |2 -
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8821ae/sw.c |2 -
drivers/platform/chrome/chromeos_laptop.c| 22 +--
drivers/platform/x86/intel_scu_ipc.c |6 ++---
drivers/platform/x86/intel_telemetry_debugfs.c |2 -
drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_flash.c |2 -
drivers/scsi/hptiop.c|6 ++---
drivers/spi/spi-dw-pci.c |4 +--
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.c |2 -
drivers/usb/misc/ezusb.c |2 -
drivers/video/fbdev/matrox/matroxfb_g450.c |2 -
lib/crc64_ecma.c |2 -
sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c |2 -
sound/pci/hda/patch_ca0132.c | 10
sound/pci/riptide/riptide.c |2 -
40 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 110 deletions(-)
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
