On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:18:28PM +0200, Romain Perier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:46:29PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Romain Perier wrote: > > > This converts all remaining cases of the old tasklet_init() API into > > > tasklet_setup(), where the callback argument is the structure already > > > holding the struct tasklet_struct. These should have no behavioral changes, > > > since they just change which pointer is passed into the callback with > > > the same available pointers after conversion. Moreover, all callbacks > > > that were not passing a pointer of structure holding the struct > > > tasklet_struct has already been converted. > > > > Was this done mechanically with Coccinelle or manually? (If done with > > Coccinelle, please include the script in the commit log.) To land a > > treewide change like this usually you'll need to separate the mechanical > > from the manual as Linus likes to run those changes himself sometimes. > > Hi, > > This was done with both technics mechanically with a "buggy" Coccinelle > script, after what I have fixed building errors and mismatches (even if it's > clearly super powerful, it was my first complex cocci script). 80% of trivial > replacements were done with a Cocci script, the rest was done manually. > That's complicated to remember which one was mechanically or manually to > be honnest :=D > > What I can propose is the following: > > - A commit for trivial tasklet_init() -> tasklet_setup() replacements: > it would contain basic replacements of the calls "tasklet_init() -> > tasklet_setup()" and addition of "from_tasklet()" without any other > changes. Right -- the manual ones might need to be split up by subsystem or driver. > - A second commit for more complicated replacements: > It would contain replacements of functions that are in different > modules, or modules that use function pointer for tasklet handlers > etc... Basically everything that is not covered by the first commit Same for this if it can't be automated. > What do you think ? > Moreover, the cocci script I have used is... ugly... so I don't want to > see Linus's eyes bleed :=D Heh. Well, the timer_struct Cocci script was ugly too. The idea is that maintainers will likely want per-driver patches, so the more you can automate with a script to put in a single commit for Linus would be better for your own sanity. :) > PS: I can try to recover the cocci script in my git repo by using "git > reflog". And put the cocci script in the first commit (for trivial > replacements), in the worst case... Probably it is only needed in the commit log. -- Kees Cook
