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] scripts: coccinelle: check for !(un)?likely usage
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        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>, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190825130536.14683-1-efremov@linux.com>
 <e87c12f2-40ab-69b7-2f55-f1fcc980e784@web.de>
From:   Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>
Message-ID: <23dfc168-5ad2-8bd8-0059-091bb814f2e6@linux.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 00:06:38 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e87c12f2-40ab-69b7-2f55-f1fcc980e784@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 25.08.2019 18:30, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> +(
>> +* !likely(E)
>> +|
>> +* !unlikely(E)
>> +)
> 
> Can the following code variant be nicer?
> 
> +*! \( likely \| unlikely \) (E)
> 
> 
>> +(
>> +-!likely(E)
>> ++unlikely(E)
>> +|
>> +-!unlikely(E)
>> ++likely(E)
>> +)
> 
> I would find the following SmPL change specification more succinct.
> 
> +(
> +-!likely
> ++unlikely
> +|
> +-!unlikely
> ++likely
> +)(E)
> 
> 
>> +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], "WARNING use unlikely instead of !likely")
> …
>> +msg="WARNING: Use unlikely instead of !likely"
>> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)
> 
> 1. I find such a message construction nicer without the extra variable “msg”.
> 
> 2. I recommend to make the provided information unique.
>    * How do you think about to split the SmPL disjunction in the rule “r”
>      for this purpose?
> 
>    * Should the transformation become clearer?

Thank you for the review, I will prepare v2.

> 
> Regards,
> Markus
>