On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Felipe Balbi felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com wrote:
Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:07AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
Constify local structures.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
Just my two cents but:
- You *can* use a static analysis too to find bugs or other issues.
- However, you should manually do the commits and proper commit messages to subsystems based on your findings. And I generally think that if one contributes code one should also at least smoke test changes somehow.
I don't know if I'm alone with my opinion. I just think that one should also do the analysis part and not blindly create and submit patches.
All of the patches are compile tested. And the individual patches are
Compile-testing is not testing. If you are not able to test a commit, you should explain why.
Dude, Julia has been doing semantic patching for years already and nobody has raised any concerns so far. There's already an expectation that Coccinelle *works* and Julia's sematic patches are sound.
+1
Besides, adding 'const' is something that causes virtually no functional changes to the point that build-testing is really all you need. Any problems caused by adding 'const' to a definition will be seen by build errors or warnings.
Unfortunately in this particular case they could lead to failures that can only be detected at runtime, when failing o write to a read-only piece of memory, due to the casting away of the constness of the pointers later. Fortunately this was detected during code review (doh...).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds