[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8041ca90-5328-19ea-633e-e0b591c5723f@web.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:19:54 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
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()
> The whole goal of the semantic patch is to ensure that put_device is
> called when needed.
Thanks for this clarification.
The software development goal seems to be clear to some degree.
> If the value is stored in a structure,
Will any further means become relevant for the discussed data processing?
> then someone else will likely take care of calling put_device later
> when the structure is destroyed.
Such a view is reasonable.
Are there any additional source code analysis and software development challenges
to consider for safer resource management?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists