From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3BDA3A1CF; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 07:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.134.164.104 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713510092; cv=none; b=eokUwuJEm3QPTlZ5FGzBtz10f6nJRks9K/9qKiWTfW8CcVMt9kVa4D/2bNc9EyyprCPUZJXFgnHVMeGdSo3s2gRfi2byv6L64i+O2m+szltdpUlBZ4z9uuhlzW1IjZbHYcIVkD3A3UatowrjAdALwP8tlBOPDnjD2qds9dSTZGM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713510092; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hu5M/GWI+6j5XlPD+m5U1EPsKsY/dPwRT5nX2i3eaNI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Y1bs3v04ENKt+nbtV3C8d7FLhiKjZJUtwtaS7ciIkVRfsrNzlpVT2v9YA99I5UlKmfQWSyFfsG3BsOFhC2sJEOyzKCRvuOdW5Uqhh58DnrKfkvxufA7h1DZ/ukIjGIG9cOK+/jPQ9OeGzlRonOySy4R3kJuWIhiqWN1bnJZlRfA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=inria.fr; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=inria.fr header.i=@inria.fr header.b=oCh4lCzC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.134.164.104 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=inria.fr Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=inria.fr header.i=@inria.fr header.b="oCh4lCzC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=lZKIvqMY0yDjmj+RCqXjIQ/hqzgZ/plMeZWor4/tnHs=; b=oCh4lCzCaB7R0QO/V04lwiVU73U/Zo2jCNbiyE/o/OC+QqodUUY3CPTy BH2N4kJIVz14Et7EVqH0NVWjaRr6JlwQ0VzCydDxlB4AltgQCGkB4uabX Vc7b+zr2HDtXO/bV4H7uZggCl5IKCUhOWxQ9e61p9P2VTxiZJn3o/J98E 4=; Authentication-Results: mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=julia.lawall@inria.fr; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) d=inria.fr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,213,1708383600"; d="scan'208";a="85211701" Received: from dt-lawall.paris.inria.fr ([128.93.67.65]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Apr 2024 09:01:22 +0200 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:01:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Markus Elfring cc: Julia Lawall , Ricardo Ribalda , Denis Efremov , Nicolas Palix , cocci@inria.fr, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: misc: minmax: Suppress reports for err returns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1530259-fe0-eb35-6f8a-58f272adef5@inria.fr> References: <20240415-minimax-v1-1-5feb20d66a79@chromium.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-533158061-1713510082=:3432" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-533158061-1713510082=:3432 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Most of the people prefer: > >> > >> return ret < 0 ? ret: 0; > >> > >> than: > >> > >> return min(ret, 0); > >> > >> Let's tweak the cocci file to ignore those lines completely. > … > > Applied, thanks. (Coccinelle for-6.10 branch). > > Was a planned code adjustment published? There is no "planned code adjustment" if there is no patch. I can check the dependencies again. julia > > > … > >> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/minmax.cocci > >> @@ -50,11 +50,26 @@ func(...) > >> ...> > >> } > >> > >> +// Ignore errcode returns. > >> +@errcode@ > … > >> -// Don't generate patches for errcode returns. > >> -@errcode depends on patch@ > … > > How does such a change fit to the usability of the coccicheck operation modes > “context” and “org”? > > Should dependencies be reconsidered any more for the desired consistency > of involved rules for scripts of the semantic patch language? > > Regards, > Markus > --8323329-533158061-1713510082=:3432--