Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinnelle: Remove ptr_ret script

[Maxime Ripard]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 09:52:36AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> 
> > 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:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The ptr_ret script script addresses a number of situations where we end up
> > > > > testing an error pointer, and if it's an error returning it, or return 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. First, it
> > > > > merges the error and success path, which will make it harder for a reviewer
> > > > > or reader to grasp.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's also more difficult to extend if we were to add some code between the
> > > > > error check and the function return, making the author essentially revert
> > > > > 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 place,
> > > > > let's remove it since it's not worth it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Convincing patch description, good catch!
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > It looks like this patch was never applied, whose tree should it go
> > through?
> 
> Sorry.  I can take it.  I'm not sure that I still have the original
> message, though.  If you have it handy, that would be helpful.

Sure, I just sent a new version with all the tags

Thanks!
Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature