On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 08:51:45PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > The changes were obtained by applying the following Coccinelle script. > > A bit of clarification happened for its implementation details. > https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2018-October/005374.html > > I have taken also another look at the following SmPL code. > > > > identifier fn =~ > > "^(__pte_alloc|pte_alloc_one|pte_alloc|__pte_alloc_kernel|pte_alloc_one_kernel)$"; > > I suggest to adjust the regular expression for this constraint > and in subsequent SmPL rules. > "^(?:pte_alloc(?:_one(?:_kernel)?)?|__pte_alloc(?:_kernel)?)$"; Sure it looks more clever, but why? Ugh that's harder to read and confusing. > > ( > > - T3 fn(T1 E1, T2 E2); > > + T3 fn(T1 E1); > > | > > - T3 fn(T1 E1, T2 E2, T4 E4); > > + T3 fn(T1 E1, T2 E2); > > ) > > I propose to take an other SmPL disjunction into account here. > > T3 fn(T1 E1, > ( > - T2 E2 > | T2 E2, > - T4 E4 > ) ); Again this is confusing. It makes one think that maybe the second argument can also be removed and requires careful observation that the ");" follows. > > ( > > - #define fn(a, b, c)@p e > > + #define fn(a, b) e > > | > > - #define fn(a, b)@p e > > + #define fn(a) e > > ) > > How do you think about to omit the metavariable “position p” here? Right, I don't need it in this case. But the script works either way. I like to take more of a problem solving approach that makes sense, than aiming for perfection, after all this is a useful script that we do not need to check in once we finish with it. - Joel
