[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22276745-4723-4391-4460-07f0820ae85b@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:17:33 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Cc: Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: zalloc-simple: Delete function "kmem_cache_alloc"
from SmPL rules
>> The function "kmem_cache_alloc" was specified despite of the technical
>> detail that this function does not get a parameter passed which would
>> correspond to such a size information.
>>
>> Thus remove it from the first two SmPL rules and omit the rule "r4".
>
> Nack.
I find such a rejection surprising once more.
> It should be supported by the size determined in another way.
I am curious on how our different views could be clarified further
for this special software situation.
* Do we agree that a proper size determination is essential for every
condition in the discussed SmPL rules together with forwarding
this information?
* How can a name be ever relevant (within the published SmPL approach)
for a function when it was designed in the way that it should generally
work without a size parameter?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists