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, 6 Apr 2020 21:15:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
To:     Alex Dewar <alex.dewar@gmx.co.uk>
cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Coccinelle: zalloc_simple: Fix patch mode for
 dma_alloc_coherent()
In-Reply-To: <20200403173011.65511-1-alex.dewar@gmx.co.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004062115000.10239@hadrien>
References: <20200403173011.65511-1-alex.dewar@gmx.co.uk>
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 Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Alex Dewar wrote:

> Commit dfd32cad146e ("dma-mapping: remove dma_zalloc_coherent()"), in
> removing dma_zalloc_coherent() treewide, inadvertently removed the patch
> rule for dma_alloc_coherent(), leaving Coccinelle unable to auto-generate
> patches for this case. Fix this.
>
> Fixes: dfd32cad146e ("dma-mapping: remove dma_zalloc_coherent()")
> CC: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar@gmx.co.uk>
> ---
>  scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci
> index 26cda3f48f01..c53aab7fe096 100644
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/alloc/zalloc-simple.cocci
> @@ -70,6 +70,15 @@ statement S;
>  - x = (T)vmalloc(E1);
>  + x = (T)vzalloc(E1);
>  |
> +- x = dma_alloc_coherent(E2,E1,E3,E4);
> ++ x = dma_alloc_coherent(E2,E1,E3,E4);

Hi,

I don't understand the above case.  The before and after code seem to be
the same?

julia


> +|
> +- x = (T *)dma_alloc_coherent(E2,E1,E3,E4);
> ++ x = dma_alloc_coherent(E2,E1,E3,E4);
> +|
> +- x = (T)dma_alloc_coherent(E2,E1,E3,E4);
> ++ x = (T)dma_alloc_coherent(E2,E1,E3,E4);
> +|
>  - x = kmalloc_node(E1,E2,E3);
>  + x = kzalloc_node(E1,E2,E3);
>  |
> --
> 2.26.0
>
>