[PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Vegard Nossum]

(Use a wider diff context such as -U10 after the patch has been applied to
see the actual uses of the variables which we change.)

>From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.

The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.

Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
---
 arch/blackfin/mm/blackfin_sram.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/blackfin/mm/blackfin_sram.c b/arch/blackfin/mm/blackfin_sram.c
index 5af3c31..9bc6aed 100644
--- a/arch/blackfin/mm/blackfin_sram.c
+++ b/arch/blackfin/mm/blackfin_sram.c
@@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sram_free);
 
 void *l1_data_A_sram_alloc(size_t size)
 {
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	void *addr = NULL;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l1_data_A_sram_alloc);
 
 int l1_data_A_sram_free(const void *addr)
 {
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l1_data_A_sram_free);
 void *l1_data_B_sram_alloc(size_t size)
 {
 #if L1_DATA_B_LENGTH != 0
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	void *addr;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l1_data_B_sram_alloc);
 int l1_data_B_sram_free(const void *addr)
 {
 #if L1_DATA_B_LENGTH != 0
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l1_data_sram_free);
 void *l1_inst_sram_alloc(size_t size)
 {
 #if L1_CODE_LENGTH != 0
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	void *addr;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -529,7 +529,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l1_inst_sram_alloc);
 int l1_inst_sram_free(const void *addr)
 {
 #if L1_CODE_LENGTH != 0
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l1_inst_sram_free);
 /* L1 Scratchpad memory allocate function */
 void *l1sram_alloc(size_t size)
 {
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	void *addr;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ void *l1sram_alloc(size_t size)
 /* L1 Scratchpad memory allocate function */
 void *l1sram_alloc_max(size_t *psize)
 {
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	void *addr;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ void *l1sram_alloc_max(size_t *psize)
 /* L1 Scratchpad memory free function */
 int l1sram_free(const void *addr)
 {
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ int l1sram_free(const void *addr)
 void *l2_sram_alloc(size_t size)
 {
 #ifdef L2_LENGTH
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	void *addr;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
@@ -641,7 +641,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(l2_sram_zalloc);
 int l2_sram_free(const void *addr)
 {
 #ifdef L2_LENGTH
-	unsigned flags;
+	unsigned long flags;
 	int ret;
 
 	/* add mutex operation */
-- 
1.5.5.1

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>
> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.

indeed, thanks

> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.

spam ?

> Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>

should be CC Bryan Wu as well ...
-mike

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Vegard Nossum]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>>
>> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
>> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
>> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>
> indeed, thanks
>
>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>
> spam ?

Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
the credit is undeserved?

>
>> Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
>> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>
> should be CC Bryan Wu as well ...
> -mike
>

Oh right. I believed that Bryan Wu is the maintainer who would
eventually apply the patch, therefore I put him as a direct recipient
of the e-mail (To-field) and that he would add his Signed-off-by line
which would make the Cc-line redundant. I guess it makes some sense to
also list the maintainer in the patch Ccs since the patch itself may
be separate from the raw e-mail (e.g. in mail archives, which
generally don't display To: or Cc: fields). I didn't realize this
before.

Thanks.


Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>>>
>>> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
>>> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
>>> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>>
>> indeed, thanks
>>
>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>
>> spam ?
>
> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
> the credit is undeserved?

*shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
The patch was generated with git.
The patch was generated with eclipse.
The patch was generated with emacs.
etc...

we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
looking back historically at changes.
-mike

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>>>> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>>>>
>>>> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
>>>> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
>>>> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>>>
>>> indeed, thanks
>>>
>>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>>
>>> spam ?
>>
>> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
>> the credit is undeserved?
>
> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
> The patch was generated with git.
> The patch was generated with eclipse.
> The patch was generated with emacs.
> etc...
>
> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
> looking back historically at changes.

although, such information may be fine in the region after --- where
the diffstat normally shows up as that will not go into the log ...
-mike

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Julia Lawall]

> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
> The patch was generated with git.
> The patch was generated with eclipse.
> The patch was generated with emacs.
> etc...
> 
> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
> looking back historically at changes.

But with git, emacs, eclipse etc, the person is still making the change by 
hand.  The comment is more like "this patch was generated with perl" or 
"this patch was generated with sed", indicating that the change is 
uniform enough to be automated.  This does have some interest, 
although perhaps not for everyone.

julia

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Vegard Nossum]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>>
>>> spam ?
>>
>> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
>> the credit is undeserved?
>
> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
> The patch was generated with git.
> The patch was generated with eclipse.
> The patch was generated with emacs.
> etc...
>
> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
> looking back historically at changes.

Hm. I agree that git/eclipse/emacs/etc. information is not very
useful. However...

For errors found with lockdep, we usually put either the lockdep
output in the commit message or say that it was found with lockdep.
Having this information in the log is useful because it also
establishes a track record for the tool which was used to discover/fix
the error.

Arguably, the semantic patch itself should be present in the log as
well. There are different practices here, but in this case, the patch
was quite long, and has already been included in a pending commit. Now
others may use the same semantic patch (or a variation of it) and
possibly find more "bad" code (possibly introduced after the semantic
patch was first applied!).

It seems that the practice of including a reference to the tool is
already widespread, though, for example:

    $ git log v2.6.26-rc2 | grep -ci 'semantic patch'
    72

    $ git log v2.6.26-rc2 | grep -ci coverity
    495

etc.


Vegard

PS: This is a bit of a sore spot for me having been directly involved
with the development of another such tool (kmemcheck). I will always
ask for kmemcheck to be credited in the log whenever it is used to
find and fix genuine programmer errors, simply because that's the best
way to measure its usefulness :-)

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>>>
>>>> spam ?
>>>
>>> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
>>> the credit is undeserved?
>>
>> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
>> The patch was generated with git.
>> The patch was generated with eclipse.
>> The patch was generated with emacs.
>> etc...
>>
>> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
>> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
>> looking back historically at changes.
>
> Hm. I agree that git/eclipse/emacs/etc. information is not very
> useful. However...
>
> For errors found with lockdep, we usually put either the lockdep
> output in the commit message or say that it was found with lockdep.
> Having this information in the log is useful because it also
> establishes a track record for the tool which was used to discover/fix
> the error.
>
> Arguably, the semantic patch itself should be present in the log as
> well. There are different practices here, but in this case, the patch
> was quite long, and has already been included in a pending commit. Now
> others may use the same semantic patch (or a variation of it) and
> possibly find more "bad" code (possibly introduced after the semantic
> patch was first applied!).

that's reasonable to include the actual source (semantic patch) that
triggered the resulting change.
-mike

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>
> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>
> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>
> Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>

make sure to grab this Bryan ?
-mike

Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags

[Bryan Wu]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> From 3ef36948a88a968eec1b09859aa251dc6727df4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:23 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags
>>
>> Using just 'unsigned' will make flags an unsigned int. While this is
>> arguably not an error on blackfin where sizeof(int) == sizeof(long),
>> the patch is still justified on the grounds of principle.
>>
>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>
>> Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
>> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
>
> make sure to grab this Bryan ?
> -mike
>

Sorry for the delay, guys. I'm just back from my vacation.

I will apply this patch to our svn first and then push it to mainline later.

Thanks
-Bryan