On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 07:22 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
A tool was used to find a potential problem, and then Peter
studied the code to see what fix was appropriate.
Hi Julia.
Was it true that a static analysis tool found the original
potential issue? If so, what tool was it?
In the very beginning, I think that I found the problem in a patch when
looking at patches that contain oopses.
From that I wrote a Coccinelle rule. As Peter showed, the rule just
produces a list of line numbers. The fix cannot easily be automated,
because there are many cases where 0 is a valid error value. Some
functions, for example, have their error value as a nonpositive integer.
But wasn't the scripted fix applied to the rest of the tree
robotically?
No. Peter studied each case and considered what should be done, and then
did that. I guess a potentially bad fix could have been applied
automatically and then cleaned up manually, but considering the number of
cases where the fix would be wrong, that seem like a bad idea. Also one
might want to adapt a bit to local conventions about where the
initialization should be added.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
