Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR_ERR() to %pe candidates"

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:04:36 +0100 (CET) Julia Lawall wrote:
> > The test by no means mandates authors to use %pe, as the output says:
> > WARNING: Consider using %pe to print PTR_ERR()
> >
> > "Consider" :).
> >
> > I would consider it best practice to use it, and a few drivers were
> > converted thanks to this test.
> >
> > If the issue is with automatic build bots, then maybe this test should
> > be excluded from them, rather than deleted?  
> 
> This is easy to do.  Or I can discard them when they come to me for
> approval.

FWIW I'd also prefer for the script to say in the tree.
Some kind of opt-out mechanism per subsystem would be ideal, 
and presumably belongs in the bots themselves. We maintain 
a list of regexp's in netdev CI to silence cocci checks we 
don't find worth complaining about. But the %pe check so far 
have not been too bad. 

And we have a policy against semi-automated patches which "clean up"
cocci or checkpatch warnings. Something we may want to adopt more
widely.