Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752010Ab2KDQRH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:17:07 -0500
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.105]:23487
	"EHLO mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751292Ab2KDQRD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 4 Nov 2012 11:17:03 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,710,1344204000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="161321355"
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 17:16:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
X-X-Sender: jll@localhost6.localdomain6
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] drop if around WARN_ON
In-Reply-To: <CA+1xoqfa6CMcsjuOQ_QRRK7kGwkFPCVvrS44rk3Xf1S2HFPTow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1211041708190.1960@localhost6.localdomain6>
References: <1351974625-10282-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <CA+1xoqd-UQXg0nuE1t5ayYY1Ow81er2mHUFUow=mfcwzkCPW5A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1211041656580.1960@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <CA+1xoqfa6CMcsjuOQ_QRRK7kGwkFPCVvrS44rk3Xf1S2HFPTow@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2367
Lines: 83

On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Julia,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
>>>> then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which
>>>> will test the condition.
>>>>
>>>> // <smpl>
>>>> @@
>>>> expression e;
>>>> @@
>>>>
>>>> (
>>>> if(<+...e(...)...+>) WARN_ON(1);
>>>> |
>>>> - if (e) WARN_ON(1);
>>>> + WARN_ON(e);
>>>> )// </smpl>
>>>
>>>
>>> So this deals with WARN_ON(), are you considering doing the same for
>>> the rest of it's friends?
>>
>>
>> I tried WARN_ON_ONCE, but the pattern never occurred.  Are there others that
>> are worth trying?
>
> Definitely!
>
> Here's the semantic patch I've got:
>
> @@
> expression e;
> @@
>
> (
> - if (e) WARN_ON(1);
> + WARN_ON(e);
> |
> - if (e) WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(e);
> |
> - if (e) WARN_ON_SMP(1);
> + WARN_ON_SMP(e);
> |
> - if (e) BUG();
> + BUG_ON(e);
> )
>
> This gave me a really huge patch output.
>
> I can send it out if you think the patch above looks good.

I didn't change any cases where the if test contains a function call.  The 
current definitions of WARN_ON seem to always evaluate the condition 
expression, but I was worried that that might not always be the case.  And 
calling a function (the ones I remember were some kinds of print 
functions) seems like something one might not want buried in the argument 
of a debugging macro.

WARN_ON_SMP is just WARN_ON if CONFIG_SMP is true, but it is just 0 
otherwise.  So in that case it seems important to check that one is not 
throwing away something important.

I remember working on the BUG_ON case several years ago, and other people 
worked on it too, but I guess some are still there...  The current 
definitions of BUG_ON seem to keep the condition, but there are quite a 
few specialized definitions, so someone at some point might make a version 
that does not have that property.

julia

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/