coccinelle: avoid wrong transformation suggestions from commit.cocci
PATCH 1/1 coccinelle: avoid wrong transformation suggestions from commit.cocci
The semantic patch 'contrib/coccinelle/commit.cocci' added in 2e27bd7731 (treewide: replace maybe_tree with accessor methods, 2018-04-06) is supposed to "ensure that all references to the 'maybe_tree' member of struct commit are either mutations or accesses through get_commit_tree()". So get_commit_tree() clearly must be able to directly access the 'maybe_tree' member, and 'commit.cocci' has a bit of a roundabout workaround to ensure that get_commit_tree()'s direct access in its return statement is not transformed: after all references to 'maybe_tree' have been transformed to a call to get_commit_tree(), including the reference in get_commit_tree() itself, the last rule transforms back a 'return get_commit_tree()' statement, back then found only in get_commit_tree() itself, to a direct access.
Unfortunately, already the very next commit shows that this workaround is insufficient: 7b8a21dba1 (commit-graph: lazy-load trees for commits, 2018-04-06) extends get_commit_tree() with a condition directly accessing the 'maybe_tree' member, and Coccinelle with 'commit.cocci' promptly detects it and suggests a transformation to avoid it. This transformation is clearly wrong, because calling get_commit_tree() to access 'maybe_tree' _in_ get_commit_tree() would obviously lead to recursion. Furthermore, the same commit added another, more specialized getter function get_commit_tree_in_graph(), whose legitimate direct access to 'maybe_tree' triggers a similar wrong transformation suggestion.
Exclude both of these getter functions from the general rule in 'commit.cocci' that matches their direct accesses to 'maybe_tree'. Also exclude load_tree_for_commit(), which, as static helper funcion of get_commit_tree_in_graph(), has legitimate direct access to 'maybe_tree' as well.
The last rule transforming back 'return get_commit_tree()' statements to direct accesses thus became unnecessary, remove it.
--- contrib/coccinelle/commit.cocci | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
contrib/coccinelle/commit.cocci +4 -6
@@ -10,11 +10,15 @@ expression c; - c->maybe_tree->object.oid.hash + get_commit_tree_oid(c)->hash +// These excluded functions must access c->maybe_tree direcly. @@ +identifier f !~ "^(get_commit_tree|get_commit_tree_in_graph|load_tree_for_commit)$"; expression c; @@ + f(...) {... - c->maybe_tree + get_commit_tree(c) + ...} @@ expression c;
@@ -22,9 +26,3 @@ expression s; @@ - get_commit_tree(c) = s + c->maybe_tree = s - -@@ -expression c; -@@ -- return get_commit_tree(c); -+ return c->maybe_tree;
Signature · 1 line
2.17.0.551.g86756ed296
Quoted 14 lines · SZEDER Gábor
The semantic patch '
contrib/coccinelle/commit.cocci' added in2e27bd7731(treewide: replacemaybe_treewith accessor methods, 2018-04-06) is supposed to "ensure that all references to the 'maybe_tree' member of struct commit are either mutations or accesses throughget_commit_tree()". Soget_commit_tree()clearly must be able to directly access the 'maybe_tree' member, and 'commit.cocci' has a bit of a roundabout workaround to ensure that get_commit_tree()'s direct access in its return statement is not transformed: after all references to 'maybe_tree' have been transformed to a call toget_commit_tree(), including the reference inget_commit_tree()itself, the last rule transforms back a 'returnget_commit_tree()' statement, back then found only inget_commit_tree()itself, to a direct access.
Quoted 11 lines
Unfortunately, already the very next commit shows that this workaround is insufficient:
7b8a21dba1(commit-graph: lazy-load trees for commits, 2018-04-06) extendsget_commit_tree()with a condition directly accessing the 'maybe_tree' member, and Coccinelle with 'commit.cocci' promptly detects it and suggests a transformation to avoid it. This transformation is clearly wrong, because callingget_commit_tree()to access 'maybe_tree' _in_get_commit_tree()would obviously lead to recursion. Furthermore, the same commit added another, more specialized getter functionget_commit_tree_in_graph(), whose legitimate direct access to 'maybe_tree' triggers a similar wrong transformation suggestion.
Thanks for catching this, Szeder. Sorry for the noise.
Quoted 5 lines
Exclude both of these getter functions from the general rule in '
commit.cocci' that matches their direct accesses to 'maybe_tree'. Also excludeload_tree_for_commit(), which, as static helper funcion ofget_commit_tree_in_graph(), has legitimate direct access to 'maybe_tree' as well.
This is an interesting feature of Coccinelle. Happy to learn it.
Quoted 4 lines
The last rule transforming back 'return
get_commit_tree()' statements to direct accesses thus became unnecessary, remove it.Signed-off-by SZEDER Gábor <[email protected]>
I applied this locally on 'next' and ran the check. I succeeded with no changes.
Thanks!
Quoted 34 lines
--- contrib/coccinelle/commit.cocci | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)contrib/coccinelle/commit.cocci +4
-6@@ -10,11 +10,15 @@ expression c; - c->maybe_tree->object.oid.hash + get_commit_tree_oid(c)->hash +// These excluded functions must access c->maybe_tree direcly. @@ +identifier f !~ "^(get_commit_tree|get_commit_tree_in_graph|load_tree_for_commit)$"; expression c; @@ + f(...) {... - c->maybe_tree + get_commit_tree(c) + ...} @@ expression c;@@ -22,9 +26,3 @@ expression s; @@ - get_commit_tree(c) = s + c->maybe_tree = s - -@@ -expression c; -@@ -- return get_commit_tree(c); -+ return c->maybe_tree;