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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200327225102.25061-1-walken@google.com> <20200327225102.25061-6-walken@google.com>
 <bc2980d7-b823-2fff-d29c-57dcbc9aaf27@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <bc2980d7-b823-2fff-d29c-57dcbc9aaf27@web.de>
From:   Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 00:47:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CANN689H=tjNi=g6M776qo8inr+OfAu8mtL5xsJpu4F=dB6R9zA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] mmap locking API: convert mmap_sem call sites
 missed by coccinelle
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Cc:     Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Markus,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:37 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
> > Convert the last few remaining mmap_sem rwsem calls to use the new
> > mmap locking API. These were missed by coccinelle for some reason
>
> Will the clarification of this software situation become more interesting?
>
> > (I think coccinelle does not support some of the preprocessor
> > constructs in these files ?)
>
> I suggest to omit this information from the final change description.
> Would you like to help any more to find nicer solutions
> for remaining open issues?

So, from a practical perspective I think coccinelle has filled its
purpose for me - it got 99% of the job done, and I had to do the last
1% by hand which is not ideal, but really not too bad either. Also, by
using coccinelle I think reviewers can appreciate that the
change is purely mechanical, and reproduce it on their end if needed,
which facilitates the review process greatly.

I would be interested to find out why coccinelle wasn't able to do the
last 1%, but only as part of a long-term learning process on getting
better with coccinelle - I don't consider it a blocker for short-term
progress on this patchset.

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.