Re: [PATCH 0/8] drop if around WARN_ON

[Sasha Levin]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> Hi Julia,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a
>>> then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which
>>> will test the condition.
>>>
>>> // <smpl>
>>> @@
>>> expression e;
>>> @@
>>>
>>> (
>>> if(<+...e(...)...+>) WARN_ON(1);
>>> |
>>> - if (e) WARN_ON(1);
>>> + WARN_ON(e);
>>> )// </smpl>
>>
>>
>> So this deals with WARN_ON(), are you considering doing the same for
>> the rest of it's friends?
>
>
> I tried WARN_ON_ONCE, but the pattern never occurred.  Are there others that
> are worth trying?

Definitely!

Here's the semantic patch I've got:

@@
expression e;
@@

(
- if (e) WARN_ON(1);
+ WARN_ON(e);
|
- if (e) WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(e);
|
- if (e) WARN_ON_SMP(1);
+ WARN_ON_SMP(e);
|
- if (e) BUG();
+ BUG_ON(e);
)

This gave me a really huge patch output.

I can send it out if you think the patch above looks good.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/