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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration
 of redundant dev_err() calls
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>
Cc:     Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ding Xiang <dingxiang@cmss.chinamobile.com>
References: <05d85182-7ec3-8fc1-4bcd-fd2528de3a40@web.de>
 <2744a3fc-9e67-8113-1dd9-43669e06386a@web.de>
From:   "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>
Organization: metux IT consult
Message-ID: <0b48a5c5-0814-6414-39ba-beb1b8b5253a@metux.net>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:48:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2744a3fc-9e67-8113-1dd9-43669e06386a@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01.07.19 10:10, Markus Elfring wrote:

Hi folks,

> +@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 devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.")
> +
> +@script:python reporting depends on report@
> +p << or.p;
> +@@
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0],
> +                             "WARNING: An error message is probably not needed here because the devm_ioremap_resource() function contains appropriate error reporting.")
> --

By the way: do we have any mechanism for explicitly suppressing
individual warnings (some kind of annotation), when the maintainer is
sure that some particular case is a false-positive ?
(I'm thinking of something similar to certain #praga directives for
explicitly ignoring invididual warnings in specific lines of code)

I believe such a feature, so we don't get spammed with the same false
positives again and again.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287