[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:20:51 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@...mail.com>
Cc: Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@....com.cn>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>> 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.
I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.
> There is no correct order.
I have got an other software development view here.
> Each order expresses something different.
I agree to this information.
> The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one
> that is more likely in practice.
Please check once more.
…
+@...rch exists@
+local idexpression id;
+expression x,e,e1;
+position p1,p2;
…
+@@
+
+id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
+... when != e = id
…
Or:
…
+ ... when != id = e
…
Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists