Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755830Ab1FOPfy (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:35:54 -0400 Received: from mgw2.diku.dk ([130.225.96.92]:35953 "EHLO mgw2.diku.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755221Ab1FOPfx (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:35:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:35:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Greg Dietsche Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cocci@diku.dk, Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr Subject: Re: [Cocci] Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: if (ret) return ret; return ret; semantic patch In-Reply-To: <4DF8D0B4.7020505@gregd.org> Message-ID: References: <1307989386-17666-1-git-send-email-Gregory.Dietsche@cuw.edu> <4DF67933.9080707@cuw.edu> <4DF7D197.5070205@cuw.edu> <4DF807B4.8010807@gregd.org> <4DF8D0B4.7020505@gregd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 657 Lines: 14 > except that 4 of the 5 ORs are cases where we want to do the -return ret; + > return ret; So I suppose for performance, I should actually add the +/- to > each of the 4 cases that we want cocci to generate a patch for? Actually, it's probably not that big a deal. It's only rewriting the ones where there is a return ret just before, not all the returns in the code, like I was originally thinking. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/