Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/fbc: Avoid full proxy f_ops for FBC debug attributes

[Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:13:35AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Hi Julia, thanks for helping here.
> >
> > So, my question is why this
> >
> > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=context COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> >
> > didn't catch this chunck:
> >
> > -		debugfs_create_file("i915_fbc_false_color", 0644, parent,
> > -				    fbc, &intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_fops);
> > +		debugfs_create_file_unsafe("i915_fbc_false_color", 0644, parent,
> > +					   fbc, &intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_fops);
> >
> > When I run it it only catches and replaces this:
> >
> > - DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(dsa_fops, dsa_get, dsa_set, dsa_fmt);
> > + DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(dsa_fops, dsa_get, dsa_set, dsa_fmt);
>
> There is something strange in your question.  You have MODE=context but
> you show the output for MODE=patch.  The rule dcf matches a call to
> debugfs_create_file, and the context rule matching DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE
> is only activated if dcf succeeds.  So when the context rule gives a
> report, there is always a corresponding call to debugfs_create_file in the
> same file, it is just not highlighted.  So the request is that it should
> be highlighted as well?

Hello Rodrigo,
Not trying to speak for you, but I think Julia's comment appears to be the
correct interpretation of your observation. Would you mind confirming/clarifying
and suggest next steps for this proposal?

Thank you,
./drv

>
> julia
>