On 1/28/2025 1:02 PM, Markus Elfring wrote: >> Teach the script to suggest conversions for timeout patterns where the >> arguments to msecs_to_jiffies() are expressions as well. > > I propose to take another look at implementation details for such a script > variant > according to the semantic patch language. > > > … >> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/secs_to_jiffies.cocci >> @@ -11,12 +11,22 @@ >> >> virtual patch > … >> -@depends on patch@ constant C; @@ >> +@depends on patch@ >> +expression E; >> +@@ >> >> -- msecs_to_jiffies(C * MSEC_PER_SEC) >> -+ secs_to_jiffies(C) >> +-msecs_to_jiffies >> ++secs_to_jiffies >> + (E >> +- * \( 1000 \| MSEC_PER_SEC \) >> + ) > > 1. I do not see a need to keep an SmPL rule for the handling of constants > (or literals) after the suggested extension for expressions.
Can you explain why? Would the expression rule also address the cases where it's a constant or literal? > 2. I find it nice that you indicate an attempt to make the shown SmPL code > a bit more succinct. > Unfortunately, further constraints should be taken better into account > for the current handling of isomorphisms (and corresponding SmPL > disjunctions). > Thus I would find an SmPL rule (like the following) more appropriate. > Sorry, I couldn't follow your sentence construction or reasoning here. I don't see how my patch is deficient, or different from your suggestion below, especially given that it follows your feedback from part 1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/9088f9a2-c4ab-4098-a255-25120df5c...@web.de/ Can you point out specifically what SmPL isomorphisms or disjunctions are broken with the patch in its current state? Thanks, Easwar
