[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902150900270.2896@hadrien>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:02:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@....com.cn>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> So I plan to modify the following to capture both cases:
> >> -local idexpression id;
> >> +expression id;
> >
> > I'm not sure that this is a good idea.
>
> Why have you got doubts here?
>
>
> > There is likely no need for a put in the latter case.
>
> I have got understanding difficulties for such information.
> What did you try to express with this sentence finally?
The whole goal of the semantic patch is to ensure that put_device is
called when needed. If the value is stored in a structure, then someone
else will likely take care of calling put_device later when the structure
is destroyed.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists