Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 21:12:20 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ding Xiang <dingxiang@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration of redundant
 dev_err() calls
In-Reply-To: <34d528db-5582-5fe2-caeb-89bcb07a1d30@web.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906202110310.3087@hadrien>
References: <05d85182-7ec3-8fc1-4bcd-fd2528de3a40@web.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1906202046550.3087@hadrien> <34d528db-5582-5fe2-caeb-89bcb07a1d30@web.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> +@display depends on context@
> >> +expression e;
> >> +@@
> >> + e = devm_ioremap_resource(...);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(e))
> >> + {
> >> +*   dev_err(...);
> >> +    return (...);
> >> + }
> >
> > Why do you assume that there is exactly one dev_err and one return after
> > the test?
>
> I propose to start with the addition of a simple source code search pattern.
> Would you prefer to clarify a more advanced approach?

I think that something like

if (IS_ERR(e))
{
<+...
*dev_err(...)
...+>
}

would be more appropriate.  Whether there is a return or not doesn't
really matter.

>
>
> >> +@script:python to_do depends on org@
> >> +p << or.p;
> >> +@@
> >> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0],
> >> +                        "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the previously called function contains appropriate error reporting.")
> >
> > "the previously called function" would be better as "devm_ioremap_resource".
>
> Would you like to get the relevant function name dynamically determined?

I have no idea what you consider "the relevant function name" to be.  If
it is always devm_ioremap_resource then it would seem that it does not
need to be dynamically determined.

julia