On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 08:00:33PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource(pdev, index, NULL) is equivalent to > > the shorter devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, index). > … > > create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource.cocci > … > > +@depends on patch@ > > +expression pdev,index; > > +position p != r1.p; > > > Why do you think that different source code positions would be required for > your transformation approach? That is important that the implementation of devm_platform_ioremap_resource isn't adapted. > > +@@ > > + > > +- devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource@p(pdev, index, NULL) > > ++ devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, index) > > I suggest to use the following SmPL code variant instead. > > -devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource@p > +devm_platform_ioremap_resource > (pdev, index > - , NULL > ) I don't care much, but IMHO my variant is easier to read. Might be subjective, though. > > +@r2 depends on !patch exists@ > > +expression pdev,index; > > +position p; > > +@@ > > + > > +* devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource@p(pdev, index, NULL) > > > I doubt that the usage of the SmPL asterisk is appropriate for the operation > modes “org” and “report”. I have no idea about org and report modes. When I try these I get a python2 error message: uwe@taurus:~/gsrc/linux$ make coccicheck You have not explicitly specified the mode to use. Using default "report" mode. Available modes are the following: patch, report, context, org, chain You can specify the mode with "make coccicheck MODE=<mode>" Note however that some modes are not implemented by some semantic patches. Please check for false positives in the output before submitting a patch. When using "patch" mode, carefully review the patch before submitting it. /usr/bin/spatch -D report --no-show-diff --very-quiet --cocci-file ./scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/alloc_cast.cocci --no-includes --include-headers --dir . -I ./arch/x86/include -I ./arch/x86/include/generated -I ./include -I ./arch/x86/include/uapi -I ./arch/x86/include/generated/uapi -I ./include/uapi -I ./include/generated/uapi --include ./include/linux/compiler-version.h --include ./include/linux/kconfig.h --jobs 4 --chunksize 1 Py.find_library: unable to find the Python library [libpython2.7m.so returned libpython2.7m.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory] [/usr/bin/../lib/libpython2.7m.so returned /usr/bin/../lib/libpython2.7m.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory] [libpython2.7.so returned libpython2.7.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory] [/usr/bin/../lib/libpython2.7.so returned /usr/bin/../lib/libpython2.7.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory] coccicheck failed make: *** [Makefile:2076: coccicheck] Error 255 After uninstalling python2 this ends in: Cannot find Python library coccicheck failed make: *** [Makefile:2076: coccicheck] Error 255 Didn't try to debug that any further. Is that worth a bug report against coccinelle (which is shipped by my distribution)? I tried to adapt the org and report modes from other patches in the same directory. So a critical glimpse by someone more knowledgable than me is recommended. However I don't know how to react to "I doubt ... is appropriate", I'd need a more constructive feedback to act on. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
