From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753076AbbIPJ0C (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:26:02 -0400
Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:11813
	"EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752968AbbIPJZ6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:25:58 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,538,1437429600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="147458144"
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:25:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than
 zero
In-Reply-To: <55F93251.4010706@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509161125370.2429@hadrien>
References: <1442309232-5902-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com> <55F816BC.5050407@users.sourceforge.net> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509151505240.2537@hadrien> <55F81A31.3040808@users.sourceforge.net> <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509151530190.2537@hadrien> <55F82252.4090900@samsung.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509151557040.2537@hadrien> <55F93251.4010706@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote:

> On 09/15/2015 03:57 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/15/2015 03:31 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>  v@p
> >>>>>> (
> >>>>>> *< 0
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> *<= 0
> >>>>>> )
> >>>>> It does not, and is not intended to, work.  The branches of a disjunction
> >>>>> should be complete expressions.
> >>>> Will the following SmPL approach be more appropriate then?
> >>>>
> >>>> (
> >>>> *v@p < 0
> >>>> |
> >>>> *v@p <= 0
> >>>> )
> >>> Actually, all of
> >>>
> >>> v < 0 (never true)
> >>> v <= 0 (same as v == 0)
> >>> v >= 0 (always true)
> >>>
> >>> would seem to merit attention.  Andrzej, what do you think?
> >>
> >> You are right, the 2nd case should be also addressed,
> >> such code is misleading.
> >> I will prepare then 2nd version of the patch.
> >
> > It could be reasonable to change the options to --all-includes?  Although
> > it could be somewhat slow.
>
> I have tested the patch with 'v <= 0', it spotted hundreds places with this
> check. It seems to be quite common practice to use such checks with counters,
> iterators, quantities, range checking. In fact it is negation of 'v > 0' which
> seems to be acceptable even if it really means 'v != 0'. So maybe we should not
> warn about it? What do you think?

It seems a bit sloppy, but since the test does have some meaning, maybe it
is OK.

> On the other side it spotted also real bugs, but maybe I can make separate, more
> specific test for such cases.

OK, thanks.

julia