[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75cad101-727d-2e6b-b6ef-a6a4d0ab4130@web.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:13:50 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>
Cc: Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>,
Xue Zhihong <xue.zhihong@....com.cn>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [v3] Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()
>> + when != ex = \( (T)id \| &id->dev \| get_device(&id->dev) \| (T1)platform_get_drvdata(id) \)
>
> There is no need for the disjunction. There is also no need for the
> different variables.
Really?
Would you like to distinguish the shown assignment expressions anyhow?
> Different variables are only needed when the when conditions are on
> different ...s
I find that this information will need further clarification.
Will any additional adjustments become relevant for such SmPL when specifications?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists