On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > On 01.07.19 10:10, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > +@script:python to_do depends on org@ > > +p << or.p; > > +@@ > > +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], > > + "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.") > > + > > +@script:python reporting depends on report@ > > +p << or.p; > > +@@ > > +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], > > + "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.") > > -- > > By the way: do we have any mechanism for explicitly suppressing > individual warnings (some kind of annotation), when the maintainer is > sure that some particular case is a false-positive ? > (I'm thinking of something similar to certain #praga directives for > explicitly ignoring invididual warnings in specific lines of code) > > I believe such a feature, so we don't get spammed with the same false > positives again and again. 0-day takes care of it on its own. Probably other such bots do the same. I'm not sure that it is a good idea to clutter the kernel code with such annotations, especially since the whole point of Ccocinelle is that the rules are easy to change. We also made a tool named Herodotos for collecting identical reports over time, but it seems to be not so easy to use. julia
