Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: api: check for propagation of error from platform_get_irq

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/27/2015 01:32 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:

The error return value of platform_get_irq seems to often get dropped.

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>

---

v2: Check for the direct return case also.  Added some mailing lists of
common offenders.

diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_get_irq_return.cocci
b/scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_get_irq_return.cocci
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..44680d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_get_irq_return.cocci
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+/// Propagate the return value of platform_get_irq.
+//# Sometimes the return value of platform_get_irq is tested using <= 0,
but 0
+//# might not be an appropriate return value in an error case.
+///
+// Confidence: Moderate
+// Copyright: (C) 2015 Julia Lawall, Inria. GPLv2.
+// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/
+// Options: --no-includes --include-headers
+
+virtual context
+virtual org
+virtual report
+
+//
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+@r depends on context || org || report@
+constant C;
+statement S;
+expression e, ret;
+position j0, j1;
+@@
+
+* e@j0 = platform_get_irq(...);
+(
+if@j1 (...) {
+  ...
+  return -C;
+} else S
+|
+if@j1 (...) {
+  ...
+  ret = -C;
+  ...
+  return ret;
+} else S

    Well, this seems to also cover the (e <= 0) checks which do make same sense
in the light of Linus considering IRQ0 invalid. So I'd be more specific about
the checks here -- 0 should indeed be overridden with something if it's
considered invalid.

That's what the limitations section says (lines with #).  This doesn't

   Ah, failed to notice those, only saw after replying.

make any changes, it only makes warnings, which should include the
limitations information, so perhaps people can consider what it is that
they really intend to do.
>
If you think this is not a good idea, then I can make the test more
specific.

Well, looking again, the patch should be good. I just thought its goal was to fix the code as well...

julia

MBR, Sergei

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Announce]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Networking Development]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux