Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1466339 > unrolled thread

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with zalloc functions

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and  memset with zalloc functions Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 14:40 +0200
    Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and  memset with zalloc functions Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2016-08-19 14:50 +0200
    Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with  zalloc functions SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-08-19 15:30 +0200
      Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with  zalloc functions Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> - 2016-08-19 15:40 +0200
        Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with  zalloc functions SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-08-19 19:00 +0200

#1466339 — Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with zalloc functions

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> +@vz1 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@
>> +type T;
>> +T *d;
>> +statement S;
>> +@@
>> +
>> +        d =
>> +-            vmalloc
>> ++            vzalloc
>> +             (...);
>> +        if (!d) S
>> +-       memset(d, 0, sizeof(T));
>> +
>> +@vz2 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@
>> +expression d;
>> +statement S;
>> +@@
>> +
>> +        d =
>> +-            vmalloc
>> ++            vzalloc
>> +             (...);
>> +        if (!d) S
>> +-       memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
>
> I suggest to take another look at a few implementation details.
>
> 1. Would it make sense to merge such SmPL rules into one
>    so that code duplication could be reduced a bit
>    in such a script?
>
> 2. How do you think about to extend the shown check list
>    with the function "kvm_kvzalloc"?
>

Hi Markus,

kvm_kvzalloc function doesn't fit the same pattern as the other
functions in this semantic patch, and is kvm specific, so the
semantic patch looks fine as is.

Thanks,
Amitoj

> 3. Do you want to maintain a growing (?) function name list manually?
>
> Regards,
> Markus

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1466358

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Amitoj Kaur Chawla wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, SF Markus Elfring
> <elfring@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >> +@vz1 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@
> >> +type T;
> >> +T *d;
> >> +statement S;
> >> +@@
> >> +
> >> +        d =
> >> +-            vmalloc
> >> ++            vzalloc
> >> +             (...);
> >> +        if (!d) S
> >> +-       memset(d, 0, sizeof(T));
> >> +
> >> +@vz2 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@
> >> +expression d;
> >> +statement S;
> >> +@@
> >> +
> >> +        d =
> >> +-            vmalloc
> >> ++            vzalloc
> >> +             (...);
> >> +        if (!d) S
> >> +-       memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d));
> >
> > I suggest to take another look at a few implementation details.
> >
> > 1. Would it make sense to merge such SmPL rules into one
> >    so that code duplication could be reduced a bit
> >    in such a script?
> >
> > 2. How do you think about to extend the shown check list
> >    with the function "kvm_kvzalloc"?
> >
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> kvm_kvzalloc function doesn't fit the same pattern as the other
> functions in this semantic patch, and is kvm specific, so the
> semantic patch looks fine as is.

Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>

>
> Thanks,
> Amitoj
>
> > 3. Do you want to maintain a growing (?) function name list manually?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Markus
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1466398 — Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with zalloc functions

>> I suggest to take another look at a few implementation details.
>>
>> 1. Would it make sense to merge such SmPL rules into one
>>    so that code duplication could be reduced a bit
>>    in such a script?
>>
>> 2. How do you think about to extend the shown check list
>>    with the function "kvm_kvzalloc"?
…
> kvm_kvzalloc function doesn't fit the same pattern as the other
> functions in this semantic patch, and is kvm specific,

Has this one got a similar function property?

Do you prefer to exclude such functions which belong to subsystems
so far generally?


> so the semantic patch looks fine as is.

How do you think about to express the shown source code repetition
as an aspect by an other script format?

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1466418 — Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with zalloc functions

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> I suggest to take another look at a few implementation details.
> >>
> >> 1. Would it make sense to merge such SmPL rules into one
> >>    so that code duplication could be reduced a bit
> >>    in such a script?
> >>
> >> 2. How do you think about to extend the shown check list
> >>    with the function "kvm_kvzalloc"?
> …
> > kvm_kvzalloc function doesn't fit the same pattern as the other
> > functions in this semantic patch, and is kvm specific,
>
> Has this one got a similar function property?

Do you have any example where XXX followed by memset is converted to this
function?

>
> Do you prefer to exclude such functions which belong to subsystems
> so far generally?

Yes, because it would introduce unwanted dependencies.

>
> > so the semantic patch looks fine as is.
>
> How do you think about to express the shown source code repetition
> as an aspect by an other script format?

It is fine as it is.

julia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1466558 — Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: Script to replace allocate and memset with zalloc functions

>> Do you prefer to exclude such functions which belong to subsystems
>> so far generally?
> 
> Yes, because it would introduce unwanted dependencies.

Are the mentioned dependencies easier to handle for subsystems
like "acpi", "dma" and "pci" (than "kvm")?

Would anybody like to tackle any further software development
challenges there?

Regards,
Markus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web