[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a07c337-533c-61c2-d033-575539309738@web.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:29:30 +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>,
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: [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>> We will modify the the if in the when code like this:
>>
>> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>> ... when != put_device(&id->dev)
…
>> - when != if (id) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... }
>> + when != if (...) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... }
>
> This looks ok.
I have got another different software development opinion also for
such SmPL code in the adjusted line.
I find this specific source code search variant irrelevant
because the shown reference release function should be found
by the first SmPL when specification already.
Would you like to determine generally if the desired function call
is present at all?
Thus I do not see a need (or requirement) for a duplicate search attempt.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists