[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a50cebe5-4aae-ea93-1920-d5743435cd1d@web.de>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 18:20:02 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>
Subject: Re: Adjusting SmPL script “ptr_ret.cocci”?
>> How do you think about to reduce subsequent SmPL rules also according to
>> a possible recombination of affected implementation details?
>
> There is not going to be any change with respect to this issue.
I am curious if the software situation will be reconsidered any further
under other circumstances.
> It's fine when replacing one statement by another, but introduces complexity
> when removing something more complex.
Thanks for such information.
> And there's not point to have something that works in only one special case.
Will corresponding software development concerns be eventually discussed
a bit more?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists