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:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:47:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>
cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        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: [PATCH v2] Coccinelle: Add a SmPL script for the reconsideration
 of redundant dev_err() calls
In-Reply-To: <0b48a5c5-0814-6414-39ba-beb1b8b5253a@metux.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907011442390.4005@hadrien>
References: <05d85182-7ec3-8fc1-4bcd-fd2528de3a40@web.de> <2744a3fc-9e67-8113-1dd9-43669e06386a@web.de> <0b48a5c5-0814-6414-39ba-beb1b8b5253a@metux.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:

> 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.

0-day takes care of it on its own.  Probably other such bots do the same.
I'm not sure that it is a good idea to clutter the kernel code with such
annotations, especially since the whole point of Ccocinelle is that the
rules are easy to change.  We also made a tool named Herodotos for
collecting identical reports over time, but it seems to be not so easy to
use.

julia