Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753821AbaLJC4r (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 21:56:47 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:54376 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752651AbaLJC4p (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 21:56:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1417980062-25151-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> From: Julian Calaby Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:56:23 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/20] fix misspelling of current function in string To: Julia Lawall Cc: linux-wireless , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk, Joe Perches , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , linux-scsi , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, "Mailing List, Arm" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, netdev , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Julia, On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Julian Calaby wrote: > >> Hi Julia, >> >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: >> > These patches replace what appears to be a reference to the name of the >> > current function but is misspelled in some way by either the name of the >> > function itself, or by %s and then __func__ in an argument list. >> >> Would there be any value in doing this for _all_ cases where the >> function name is written in a format string? > > Probably. But there are a lot of them. Even for the misspellings, I have > only don about 1/3 of the cases. > > On the other hand, the misspelling have to be checked carefully, because a > misspelling of one thing could be the correct spelling of the thing thst > was actually intended. > > Joe, however, points out that a lot of these prints are just for function > tracing, and could be removed. I worked on another semantic patch that > tries to do that. It might be better to remove those prints completely, > rather than sending one patch to transform them and then one patch to > remove them after that. That is why for this series I did only the ones > where there was actually a problem. Ok, that makes sense. Either way though, this is a really interesting application of the semantic patching. Nice work! Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- 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/