Re: [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name?

Am 29.11.2025 14:51 schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2025, Tobias Deiminger wrote:
>  [...]
> The return type for the function is required in this case:
> 
> @r@
> attribute a;
> identifier fn;
> types t;
> @@
> 
> * t a fn(...) { ... }

@Julia
Thanks, almost there...

The rule with return type you suggested works when I put the expanded 
form directly in my.c

   asmlinkage unsigned long __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 mysyscall(void) { return 0; 
}

*and* additionally add '#define __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 MACROANNOTATION' to 
standard.h. Without MACROANNOTATION I would get semantic error.

But if I put the macro form to my.c (which is my original use case)

   SYSCALL_DEFINE0(mysyscall) { return 0; }

and add either only this

   #define SYSCALL_DEFINE0(func) \
         asmlinkage unsigned long __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 func(void)

, or additionally the MACROANNOTATION hint to standard.h, I always get 
parse errors, even with return type. Any ideas what's going on?


@Markus
> You might point remaining improvement possibilities out for this 
> evolving software.

Thanks also for your pointers. I've started learning about Coccinelle 
yesterday evening and think I'm not in a position to make improvement 
suggestions :D What Julia suggested would suite my case, once it works.

Tobias