Re: [cocci] [PATCH] scripts/coccinelle: Add script for using ARRAY_END()

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Julia,

On 2026-03-09T13:21:23+0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
[...]
> > > > +// Confidence: ???
> > >
> > > I hope that a more reasonable value can be determined for this information.
> >
> > I don't know how the scale works.  I know the script has a few false
> > negatives, and AFAIK there are no false positives.  To what level of
> > confidence would that belong?
> 
> Probably high would be fine.  The goal is mostly to indiacte whether the
> results are most likely correct or whether they will require a lot of
> study to know if everything is ok.

Thanks!  I've put high with a comment about the false negatives.

[...]
> > > > +// Comments:
> > >
> > > Please omit such an empty field.
> >
> > Ok; thanks!
> >
> > $ grep -rh '^// Comments:' scripts/coccinelle/ | sort | uniq -c
> >      34 // Comments:
> >       2 // Comments: -
> >       1 // Comments: -I ... -all_includes can give more complete results
> >       1 // Comments: Comments on code can be deleted if near code that is removed.
> >       1 // Comments: Some false positives on empty default cases in switch statements.
> >       1 // Comments: requires at least Coccinelle 0.2.4, lex or parse error otherwise
> > $ find scripts/coccinelle/ -type f | wc -l
> > 76
> >
> >
> > It seems around half of the existing scripts have that.  You may want to
> > remove those empty comments.  I added it because the scripts I looked at
> > do have it.
> 
> I don't require taht an empty comments field be removed.

Ok.

> > > …
> > > > +@i@
> > > > +@@
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > >
> > > I doubt that such an SmPL rule would be required.
> >
> > Okay, I'll remove it.  Thanks!
> 
> I'm lacking context.  You maye need this if the file doesn't already have
> it.  But it is hard to know if it could be include indirectly...

Hmmm, this macro is defined together with ARRAY_SIZE() in
<linux/array_size.h>.  I guess even if a file isn't including that
already (including indirectly), it would do well in including it for
using the macro, so I guess it's okay to remove it here.

The only concern would be files that *can't* possibly include it (maybe
tools/?).


> julia

Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature