[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e479c5c7-2556-eb77-9e9c-8833fb883a39@web.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:00:45 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
Wen Yang <wenyang@...ux.alibaba.com>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Cc: 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: [v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
do_div() calls
>> Thus I suggest now to split the source code search pattern into
>> four separate rules.
>
> Why?
Does the Coccinelle software ensure that a variable like “r.ul” contains
really useful data even if the expected branch of the SmPL disjunction
was occasionally not matched?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists