From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 1984D145355 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761758792; cv=none; b=Q4tjeNoJl5fCyR7UHgpLjXWPFWBeOgBYepGwNEq5mNpwibmm4OSRS+6Wlj4m+OPiCU1mMX7vA22vGixWrVxy3MeEUEfGg0XlVk3WLNWnAkZyOygnHLfg18IybykUJF5WvajmLGjCC9LlsKP2yWnmcFrpmGLp4Thttsj3fv1KNy0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761758792; c=relaxed/simple; bh=COCBHjoGNg+MNgwpImmfllkJEQc0gKS1BnO36JSJT+E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hKvliw/j7WwkutG82u83PmhnkvdEah8EHIexD6PFCjzZPFy2/mqCzo2Vqryo5MKJ+RyjSe/BUixlwH0Kifmei3MB9zoG5fNsoX1DDnttafPWfxzmyEoBoS8h/jeZaQrbqJVda16OHVDhKHqBT4dF2mpWFeRnrx7nji+1cvDX/YI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=YlU1971g; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YlU1971g" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48640C4CEF7; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:26:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761758791; bh=COCBHjoGNg+MNgwpImmfllkJEQc0gKS1BnO36JSJT+E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=YlU1971gG22p/Dx7YV2h8reYt3n6Ia0q89xAHaMn7GmLNBp5rFBbyAZ4IDm/WZpg0 /yO6WAp4trikzy/F7HsLTrqEL5wwOvy96jfkjuAyl80mI0ZMWUvfcKnkUrLb7Mho9u P2ZTeNVUBw+g+bbbj7u67EQXPgWT1/kXRZRnr4mxZl8x7q5+CIqOf02/T+VJs0UlZz p8I7SPHE9M1ElOfOKfJnRPVpQPcALfqQkbhyEi1vcsqB/aVokbwEkfsNxY7Aw/cBpy p6M1gej5wi8aCYPm0Uui+AFFG0mcV3rmqqYgHAr4ParDDVCw3QyZ07NloSfs78wLwB xAuOLjoBcazwQ== Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:26:30 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Julia Lawall Cc: Gal Pressman , Johan Hovold , Nicolas Palix , Alexei Lazar , Simon Horman , cocci@inria.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR_ERR() to %pe candidates" Message-ID: <20251029102630.2a9bd6e7@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <47ef2f61-85c1-92fa-12dc-e5918d90488@inria.fr> References: <20251029132922.17329-1-johan@kernel.org> <826f2fdb-bad8-44f4-8c8e-9353c3de73cd@nvidia.com> <47ef2f61-85c1-92fa-12dc-e5918d90488@inria.fr> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:04:36 +0100 (CET) Julia Lawall wrote: > > The test by no means mandates authors to use %pe, as the output says: > > WARNING: Consider using %pe to print PTR_ERR() > > > > "Consider" :). > > > > I would consider it best practice to use it, and a few drivers were > > converted thanks to this test. > > > > If the issue is with automatic build bots, then maybe this test should > > be excluded from them, rather than deleted? > > This is easy to do. Or I can discard them when they come to me for > approval. FWIW I'd also prefer for the script to say in the tree. Some kind of opt-out mechanism per subsystem would be ideal, and presumably belongs in the bots themselves. We maintain a list of regexp's in netdev CI to silence cocci checks we don't find worth complaining about. But the %pe check so far have not been too bad. And we have a policy against semi-automated patches which "clean up" cocci or checkpatch warnings. Something we may want to adopt more widely.