On 03/22/2018 11:51 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote:
Re-run Coccinelle script scripts/coccinelle/return_directly.cocci
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com>
---
target/xtensa/core-dc232b/xtensa-modules.c | 56 ++++++----------------
target/xtensa/core-dc233c/xtensa-modules.c | 56 ++++++----------------
target/xtensa/core-de212/xtensa-modules.c | 48 +++++--------------
target/xtensa/core-fsf/xtensa-modules.c | 32 ++++---------
.../xtensa/core-sample_controller/xtensa-modules.c | 24 +++-------
These files were autogenerated, fixing them doesn't make much sense.
How frequently is the generator rerun? Is it something where we are
likely to revert the change because it needs to be rerun soon? If so,
then is it worth fixing the generator to output more concise code?
Conversely, if they were generated up front, but likely to remain
unchanged into the future, then fixing them (even though the fix differs
from the generator) will mean they no longer show up as false positives
in future runs of the Coccinelle script.
I'm also fine removing the changes to these files as part of preparing
the PULL request, if that's what you would prefer.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
