[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cb490cf4-425b-ad33-935a-22c6f3bcc1d2@web.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:28:19 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put
> We tested and found that both <...x...> and <+... x ...+> variants work fine.
Is the difference in the functionality from this SmPL construct clear already?
> We use <... x ...> instead of <+... x ...+> here to eliminate the following false positives:
Do we stumble on another software design challenge?
For which function parameter will the specified variable be required finally?
> 486 asd = v4l2_async_notifier_add_fwnode_subdev(
> 487 &camss->notifier, of_fwnode_handle(remote), ---> v4l2_async_notifier_add_fwnode_subdev will pass remote to camss->notifier.
> 488 sizeof(*csd));
Should any more special cases be taken better into account?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists