[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602161516450.6722@hadrien>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:17:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: coccinelle: also catch kzfree() issues
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @free@
> >> +identifier kfree =~ "kz?free";
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestions. However, the regular expression is not such a
> > good idea.
>
> How much is such a SmPL constraint still usable then?
>
>
> > Coccinelle doesn't make any optimizations based on regulat expressions.
>
> Where can your software optimise the source code search?
When the name appears explicitly in the matching code, Coccinelle will
parse and process only files that contain that name.
julia
>
>
> > It would be better to put a disjunction with kfree and kzfree explicitly,
> > as in the other cases.
>
> What are the circumstances for corresponding benefits?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists