[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <80dc77ec-16ef-4573-d80b-70452358eab8@web.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:55:40 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc: Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Armijn Hemel <armijn@...ldur.nl>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@....com.cn>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Xue Zhihong <xue.zhihong@....com.cn>,
Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: Checking the deletion of duplicate of_node_put()
calls with SmPL
> But I wonder at the moment why it does not work (as expected) for the original
> complete source file.
I discovered that a diff hunk (or usable patch?) is generated
if the return statement is deleted (or commented out) before the jump label
which refers to a potentially unwanted function call at the mentioned place.
How will the support evolve for automatic adjustment of such source code
combinations by the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software)?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists