Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:48:23 +0100
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>, michal.lkml@markovi.net,
        Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        nicolas.palix@imag.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinnelle: Remove ptr_ret script
Message-ID: <20201215084823.towbaqay5tgdh7dw@gilmour>
References: <20200107073629.325249-1-maxime@cerno.tech>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2001071106420.3004@hadrien>
 <20200107102954.GB1135@ninjato>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5hw66wsxl6qicpm2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200107102954.GB1135@ninjato>
Precedence: bulk


--5hw66wsxl6qicpm2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 11:29:54AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 11:06:56AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >=20
> > > The ptr_ret script script addresses a number of situations where we e=
nd up
> > > testing an error pointer, and if it's an error returning it, or retur=
n 0
> > > otherwise to transform it into a PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO call.
> > >
> > > So it will convert a block like this:
> > >
> > > if (IS_ERR(err))
> > >     return PTR_ERR(err);
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > into
> > >
> > > return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(err);
> > >
> > > While this is technically correct, it has a number of drawbacks. Firs=
t, it
> > > merges the error and success path, which will make it harder for a re=
viewer
> > > or reader to grasp.
> > >
> > > It's also more difficult to extend if we were to add some code betwee=
n the
> > > error check and the function return, making the author essentially re=
vert
> > > that patch before adding new lines, while it would have been a trivial
> > > addition otherwise for the rewiever.
> > >
> > > Therefore, since that script is only about cosmetic in the first plac=
e,
> > > let's remove it since it's not worth it.
> > >
> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
> > > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
> >=20
> > Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
>=20
> Convincing patch description, good catch!
>=20
> Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

It looks like this patch was never applied, whose tree should it go
through?

Thanks!
Maxime

--5hw66wsxl6qicpm2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCX9h4VwAKCRDj7w1vZxhR
xZ0BAQD1ZXa/ItFHIo5NWZRARYGbuSbkRWYbcCsQVw+HHg7aEQD/RquZR/W23qaA
8bVm4Koy2o1u3VAH53EEpY7lm2cs9wY=
=/ffb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5hw66wsxl6qicpm2--