Hello, I have taken another look at a known script for the semantic patch language. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci?id=1e3778cb223e861808ae0daccf353536e7573eed#n3 I got the impression that duplicate SmPL code can be reduced here. So I tried the following approach out. … @depends on patch@ expression ptr; @@ ( ( - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0; | - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); return 0; ) + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr); | - (IS_ERR(ptr) ? PTR_ERR(ptr) : 0) + PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr) ) … Unfortunately, I got the following information then for a test transformation. elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch -D patch scripts/coccinelle/api/ptr_ret.cocci drivers/spi/spi-gpio.c … 29: no available token to attach to It seems that the Coccinelle software “1.0.7-00218-gf284bf36” does not like the addition of the shown return statement after a nested SmPL disjunction. But the following SmPL code variant seems to work as expected. … @depends on patch@ expression ptr; @@ ( - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); else return 0; + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr); | - if (IS_ERR(ptr)) return PTR_ERR(ptr); return 0; + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr); | - (IS_ERR(ptr) ? PTR_ERR(ptr) : 0) + PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(ptr) ) … How do you think about to reduce subsequent SmPL rules also according to a possible recombination of affected implementation details? Regards, Markus
