Re: coccinelle: api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource: remove useless script

[Markus Elfring]

>>> I think part of the issue is that the script reports a WARNING

Would anybody like to change this category to âINFOâ?


>> How much does this information influence really the stress tolerance
>> and change resistance (or acceptance) for the presented collateral evolution?
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/scripts/coccinelle/api/devm_platform_ioremap_resource.cocci
>
> -ENOPARSE.

* Automated processes can trigger also big amounts of possible adjustments.

* The software development capacity will vary for affected components
  during the years.

* Implementing changes is a recurring project management task, isn't it?


>>> for something that is definitely correct code,
>>
>> Can related software improvement possibilities be taken into account
>> again under other circumstances?
>
> These patches provide no improvement whatsoever.

* Do you find information from the description of a corresponding
  commit 7945f929f1a77a1c8887a97ca07f87626858ff42
  ("drivers: provide devm_platform_ioremap_resource()") reasonable?
  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/drivers/base/platform.c

* How do you think about to compare any differences with
  software build results?


> As pointed out, they mostly introduce bugs.

Would you like to check any error statistics in more detail?


> Providing Coccinelle scripts that scream about perfectly valid code is pointless,

They usually point opportunities out for further collateral evolution,
don't they?


> and the result is actively harmful.

You might not like some changes for a while.


> If said script was providing a correct semantic patch

I got the impression that this can also happen often enough.
Would you like to check the concrete transformation failure rate once more?


> instead of being an incentive for people to churn untested patches
> that span the whole tree, that'd be a different story.

Various developers got motivated to achieve something (possible improvements?)
also by the means of available software analysis tools.
Mistakes can then happen as usual during such adjustment attempts.


> But that's not what this is about.

I guess that your software development concerns can be clarified a bit more.

Regards,
Markus