Re: [PATCH 01/16] coccinelle: misc: secs_to_jiffies: Patch expressions too

[Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/28/2025 1:02 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Teach the script to suggest conversions for timeout patterns where the
>> arguments to msecs_to_jiffies() are expressions as well.
> 
> I propose to take another look at implementation details for such a script variant
> according to the semantic patch language.
> 
> 
> …
>> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/secs_to_jiffies.cocci
>> @@ -11,12 +11,22 @@
>>
>>  virtual patch
> …
>> -@depends on patch@ constant C; @@
>> +@depends on patch@
>> +expression E;
>> +@@
>>
>> -- msecs_to_jiffies(C * MSEC_PER_SEC)
>> -+ secs_to_jiffies(C)
>> +-msecs_to_jiffies
>> ++secs_to_jiffies
>> + (E
>> +- * \( 1000 \| MSEC_PER_SEC \)
>> + )
> 
> 1. I do not see a need to keep an SmPL rule for the handling of constants
>    (or literals) after the suggested extension for expressions.

Can you explain why? Would the expression rule also address the cases
where it's a constant or literal?

> 2. I find it nice that you indicate an attempt to make the shown SmPL code
>    a bit more succinct.
>    Unfortunately, further constraints should be taken better into account
>    for the current handling of isomorphisms (and corresponding SmPL disjunctions).
>    Thus I would find an SmPL rule (like the following) more appropriate.
> 

Sorry, I couldn't follow your sentence construction or reasoning here. I
don't see how my patch is deficient, or different from your suggestion
below, especially given that it follows your feedback from part 1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/9088f9a2-c4ab-4098-a255-25120df5c497@xxxxxx/

Can you point out specifically what SmPL isomorphisms or disjunctions
are broken with the patch in its current state?

Thanks,
Easwar