Re: [cocci] [RFC] Increasing usage of direct pointer assignments from memcpy() calls with SmPL?
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Thu Oct 30 2025 - 08:26:22 EST
> If you have a concern, you have to say what it is. It doesn't seem it is
> about the running time, so why do you include that information?
How will remaining open issues be resolved?
> I should not have to repeat your experiment
It would be nice if further software users would occasionally reproduce
presented data processing possibilities.
> to figure out what you are
> asking about.
I “accidentally” tried also the following SmPL script variants out.
A)
@replacement3@
expression object, size, source, target;
@@
target =
-object; memcpy(target, source, size)
+object; memcpy(object, source, size)
;
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Linux/next-analyses> time /usr/bin/spatch --max-width 100 --no-loops …/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/use_memcpy_assignment3.cocci arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
…
@@ -2600,8 +2600,8 @@ static int __init init_hyp_mode(void)
goto out_err;
}
- page_addr = page_address(page);
- memcpy(page_addr, CHOOSE_NVHE_SYM(__per_cpu_start), nvhe_percpu_size());
+ page_addr =memcpy(page_address(page), CHOOSE_NVHE_SYM(__per_cpu_start),
+ nvhe_percpu_size());page_address(page);
kvm_nvhe_sym(kvm_arm_hyp_percpu_base)[cpu] = (unsigned long)page_addr;
}
real 0m0,578s
user 0m0,524s
sys 0m0,047s
B)
@replacement4@
expression object, size, source, target;
@@
-target = object; memcpy(target, source, size)
+target = object; memcpy(object, source, size)
;
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Linux/next-analyses> time /usr/bin/spatch --max-width 100 --no-loops …/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/use_memcpy_assignment4.cocci arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
…
@@ -2600,8 +2600,8 @@ static int __init init_hyp_mode(void)
goto out_err;
}
+ memcpy(page_address(page), CHOOSE_NVHE_SYM(__per_cpu_start), nvhe_percpu_size());
page_addr = page_address(page);
- memcpy(page_addr, CHOOSE_NVHE_SYM(__per_cpu_start), nvhe_percpu_size());
kvm_nvhe_sym(kvm_arm_hyp_percpu_base)[cpu] = (unsigned long)page_addr;
}
real 0m0,565s
user 0m0,533s
sys 0m0,032s
Would you like to reconsider implementation details accordingly?
Regards,
Markus