Re: [PATCH 2/2] ci: bump ubuntu image version for static-analysis job

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Aug 10, 2026, 05:38 UTC
Message-ID: <anlj3kdAfOh8OnNR@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8q6hgb2m.fsf@gitster.g>

On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 09:16:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > They'd of course require a bit of a deeper look, but that could be
> > another way to speed up Coccinelle for us. Even though I cannot say for
> > sure by how much, I didn't give it a test.
> 
> Another benefit is that it would reduce the programmer's burden, as
> it is not immediately apparent which rules are still relevant.
> 
> I wonder if we can easily define the exit criteria when we introduce
> a new rule and document them, immediately next to the rules.
> 
> You said "refs, object_id, the_repository, ... all look like we have
> long done with the migrations"; in retrospect, would it have been
> easily doable for those who introduced these rules to describe how
> we would declare "now migration is done"?  If so, perhaps a good
> step forward may be to update tools/coccinelle/README to add such a
> rule.
> 
>     ... goes and looks ...
> 
> The readme file clearly states that transformations needed for
> migrations are *not* regularly run.  Is it possible that we have
> these rules you mentioned misclassified?

For all I can see, both our Makefile and Meson simply take all Coccinelle files we have, concatenate and run those rules against our whole codebase. So I don't see any kind of classification at all?

Ah, no, you're right. We have the ".pending" suffix that we do treat special. We only have a single one of those with "config_fn_ctx". Arguably, many of the others should've been classified as pending, too. But I think it's quite easy to miss that we even treat these kinds of files special.

Taking a step back, I do have to wonder whether the Cocci files have been adding any kind of value in the first place. I myself introduced some of them in contexts where I made sweeping changes to our APIs, so that any in-flight topics can be trivially adjusted via Coccinelle. But I very much doubt that anyone ever used those to adapt their in-flight patch series at all.

So maybe we should just not do that anymore?

Patrick