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

[Johan Hovold]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 03:59:50PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 29/10/2025 15:29, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > This reverts commit 57c49d2355729c12475554b4c51dbf830b02d08d.
> > 
> > Using "%pe" to print errnos is in no way mandated and a driver authors
> > may chose not to use it, for example, for consistency reasons.
> > 
> > Drop the recently added cocci script that has gotten the build bots to
> > send warning emails about perfectly valid code and which will likely
> > only result in churn and inconsistency.
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aQHi4nUfIlcN1ac6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The test by no means mandates authors to use %pe, as the output says:
> WARNING: Consider using %pe to print PTR_ERR()
> 
> "Consider" :).

Right, but it's preceded by a big "WARNING".

> I would consider it best practice to use it, and a few drivers were
> converted thanks to this test.

Unlike the rest of the misc cocci scripts I skimmed, this one does not
guard against any bugs. Instead it's pushing for a subjective style
preference, which is just going to result in churn when the clean up
crew starts sending mindless conversions of individual printks.

By all means, use %pe for your drivers, but it should not be forced
upon the rest of us this way.

> If the issue is with automatic build bots, then maybe this test should
> be excluded from them, rather than deleted?

It's both; it's the noise the new warnings generate but also the coming
flood up patches to "fix" them. There are already some 40 commits or so
in linux-next referencing this script.

Johan