[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a2b7d00-442e-0c1b-73cc-aed2bbecd13a@web.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 11:35:33 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Matthias Männich <maennich@...gle.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
do_div() calls
> - fix 'WARNING:' twice in each case.
A duplicate text was removed.
> +@...ipt:python depends on org@
> +p << r.p;
> +ul << r.ul;
I interpret this variable assignment in the way that it will work only
if the corresponding branch of the SmPL disjunction was actually matched
by the referenced SmPL rule.
Thus I suggest now to split the source code search pattern into
four separate rules.
> +warnings = construct_warnings(ul, "div64_ul")
* Can two identifiers be nicer without an “s”?
* Would it be sufficient to pass a shorter identification
(without the prefix “div64_”)?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists