[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2001091140380.10786@hadrien>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 11:41:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
cc: Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
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
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > +@...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.
Why?
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists