lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:05:57 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <>
To:     Markus Elfring <>
cc:     Wen Yang <>,
        Gilles Muller <>,
        Nicolas Palix <>,
        Michal Marek <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Wen Yang <>,
        Cheng Shengyu <>,,
        LKML <>,
        Coccinelle <>
Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two identifiers)
> >> as a required SmPL script correction?
> >
> > I didn't suggest to reorder anything.
> This is obvious according to your acknowledgement for the sixth version
> of this evolving SmPL script.
> > Both are needed.
> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
> for a SmPL ellipsis:
> Can we agree on a correct order?

I don't get your point.  There is no correct order.  Each order expresses
something different.  The order that is currently in the semantic patch is
the one that is more likely in practice.


> > And, no I don't consider it to be a required suggestion.
> Have we got a different view about an implementation detail at this place?
> > In practice, reassigning such a variable is very unlikely.
> This can be.
> Regards,
> Markus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists