On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> Hi Julia, >> >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> wrote: >>> >>> These patches convert a conditional with a simple test expression and a >>> then branch that only calls WARN_ON(1) to just a call to WARN_ON, which >>> will test the condition. >>> >>> // <smpl> >>> @@ >>> expression e; >>> @@ >>> >>> ( >>> if(<+...e(...)...+>) WARN_ON(1); >>> | >>> - if (e) WARN_ON(1); >>> + WARN_ON(e); >>> )// </smpl> >> >> >> So this deals with WARN_ON(), are you considering doing the same for >> the rest of it's friends? > > > I tried WARN_ON_ONCE, but the pattern never occurred. Are there others that > are worth trying?
Definitely! Here's the semantic patch I've got: @@ expression e; @@ ( - if (e) WARN_ON(1); + WARN_ON(e); | - if (e) WARN_ON_ONCE(1); + WARN_ON_ONCE(e); | - if (e) WARN_ON_SMP(1); + WARN_ON_SMP(e); | - if (e) BUG(); + BUG_ON(e); ) This gave me a really huge patch output. I can send it out if you think the patch above looks good. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
