Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR_ERR() to %pe candidates"

[Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>]

On 30/10/2025 16:06, Johan Hovold wrote:
> Note that in most cases you have ret variable that holds the errno,
> which would not be caught by this cocci script either:
> 
> 	ret = PTR_ERR(p);
> 	dev_err(dev, "failed to ...: %d\n", ret);
> 	return ret; // or goto out;

I have a followup patch that catches these kinds of cases as well.

> It still generates noise and extra work for already overworked
> maintainers that would need to explain over and over again why they are
> rejecting patches that appears to fix "warnings". Some will just take
> the patches, which leads to inconsistencies (as only a handful of
> printks will be converted) and a push for a style which again only some
> people prefer.

There's the subsystem maintainer "rules" documentation in
Documentation/process/maintainer-*.rst which can document these kinds of
stuff.

> 
> So I still think this script should be dropped. And you still need to
> review drivers manually if you really want to use %pe consistently (e.g.
> for all the cases where there is no error pointer to begin with).

I am not sure who is to decide, obviously I prefer not to revert it, but
I understand your concerns.