On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 08:51:45PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

quoted

The changes were obtained by applying the following Coccinelle script.

A bit of clarification happened for its implementation details.
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2018-October/005374.html

I have taken also another look at the following SmPL code.

quoted

identifier fn =~
"^(__pte_alloc|pte_alloc_one|pte_alloc|__pte_alloc_kernel|pte_alloc_one_kernel)$";

I suggest to adjust the regular expression for this constraint
and in subsequent SmPL rules.
"^(?:pte_alloc(?:_one(?:_kernel)?)?|__pte_alloc(?:_kernel)?)$";

Sure it looks more clever, but why? Ugh that's harder to read and confusing.

quoted

(
- T3 fn(T1 E1, T2 E2);
+ T3 fn(T1 E1);
|
- T3 fn(T1 E1, T2 E2, T4 E4);
+ T3 fn(T1 E1, T2 E2);
)

I propose to take an other SmPL disjunction into account here.

 T3 fn(T1 E1,
(
-      T2 E2
|      T2 E2,
-      T4 E4
)      );

Again this is confusing. It makes one think that maybe the second argument
can also be removed and requires careful observation that the ");" follows.

quoted

(
- #define fn(a, b, c)@p e
+ #define fn(a, b) e
|
- #define fn(a, b)@p e
+ #define fn(a) e
)

How do you think about to omit the metavariable “position p” here?

Right, I don't need it in this case. But the script works either way.

I like to take more of a problem solving approach that makes sense, than
aiming for perfection, after all this is a useful script that we do not
need to check in once we finish with it.

 - Joel