Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:36:22 +0100 | From | Rob Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESUBMIT 0/2] fs/seq_file: Add seq_open_init() |
| |
On 25/09/14 17:09, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> On 24/09/14 19:06, Kees Cook wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Rob Jones <rob.jones@codethink.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Series resubmitted due to a typo in an email address. >>>> >>>> This patch series implements and documents a new interface function for >>>> seq_file. >>>> >>>> The existing set of open functions: seq_open(), seq_open_private() and >>>> __seq_open_private() satisfy the majority of use cases however there is >>>> one more use case that is also very common that this new function >>>> addresses. >>>> >>>> This case is where the iterator needs information that is available only >>>> at >>>> the time the seq_file is opened but does not need any space allocated, >>>> e.g. >>>> access to the inode structure. This type of open occurs, by my best >>>> estimate, >>>> in well over 40 places. >>>> >>>> Using the new function saves at least two lines of boilerplate code per >>>> instance as well as making the code easier to follow. The additional code >>>> in seq_file.c to implement the function is minimal as the first place >>>> that >>>> code can be removed is within seq_file.c itself. >>>> >>>> Once this patch is accepted, the instances of boilerplate code can be >>>> addressed. >>> >>> >>> Would it be possible to write a coccinelle patch for the replacements? >> >> >> I'm afraid I don't know what that means. > > It's a very flexible tool that should be able to find all the places > where this pattern is being used, and you can replace it with the new > function call: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/315686/
I suspect that the learning curve would exceed the utility but I'll have a look at it. Unless there's a coccinelle expert available to do it, in which case I could point them in the right direction.
My gut reaction would be that by the time I had analysed enough cases to come up with a viable set of SmPL scripts I would have done most of the work required, especially if I had to learn a new syntax and tool to do it.
But first impressions aren't always right.
> > -Kees > >
-- Rob Jones Codethink Ltd mailto:rob.jones@codethink.co.uk tel:+44 161 236 5575
| |