lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2026]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [cocci] [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle: Add script for using ARRAY_END()
Hi Julia,

On 2026-03-09T13:21:23+0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
[...]
> > > > +// Confidence: ???
> > >
> > > I hope that a more reasonable value can be determined for this information.
> >
> > I don't know how the scale works. I know the script has a few false
> > negatives, and AFAIK there are no false positives. To what level of
> > confidence would that belong?
>
> Probably high would be fine. The goal is mostly to indiacte whether the
> results are most likely correct or whether they will require a lot of
> study to know if everything is ok.

Thanks! I've put high with a comment about the false negatives.

[...]
> > > > +// Comments:
> > >
> > > Please omit such an empty field.
> >
> > Ok; thanks!
> >
> > $ grep -rh '^// Comments:' scripts/coccinelle/ | sort | uniq -c
> > 34 // Comments:
> > 2 // Comments: -
> > 1 // Comments: -I ... -all_includes can give more complete results
> > 1 // Comments: Comments on code can be deleted if near code that is removed.
> > 1 // Comments: Some false positives on empty default cases in switch statements.
> > 1 // Comments: requires at least Coccinelle 0.2.4, lex or parse error otherwise
> > $ find scripts/coccinelle/ -type f | wc -l
> > 76
> >
> >
> > It seems around half of the existing scripts have that. You may want to
> > remove those empty comments. I added it because the scripts I looked at
> > do have it.
>
> I don't require taht an empty comments field be removed.

Ok.

> > > …
> > > > +@i@
> > > > +@@
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > >
> > > I doubt that such an SmPL rule would be required.
> >
> > Okay, I'll remove it. Thanks!
>
> I'm lacking context. You maye need this if the file doesn't already have
> it. But it is hard to know if it could be include indirectly...

Hmmm, this macro is defined together with ARRAY_SIZE() in
<linux/array_size.h>. I guess even if a file isn't including that
already (including indirectly), it would do well in including it for
using the macro, so I guess it's okay to remove it here.

The only concern would be files that *can't* possibly include it (maybe
tools/?).


> julia

Cheers,
Alex

--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2026-03-09 13:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog