[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2001091315560.10786@hadrien>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 13:17:44 +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: [v2] coccinelle: semantic patch to check for inappropriate
do_div() calls
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> > The python code will only be executed if it does.
>
> The Python scripts will be executed if the SmPL rule “r” found something.
> I suggest to take a closer look at the involved data types for
> really safe case distinctions.
> Does the dependency management around the application of SmPL disjunctions
> need any further clarification?
I already clarified it. The python code will only be executed if the
variables that it references have values. The criterion is not just
whether the rule r was matched.
To see that this is the case, all or you have to do is try it. Or read
the Coccinelle source code.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists