From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: wen.yang99@zte.com.cn
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, michal.lkml@markovi.net,
yellowriver2010@hotmail.com, nicolas.palix@imag.fr,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Markus.Elfring@web.de,
cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:26 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902180740550.3111@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201902181122502228026@zte.com.cn>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > > when != e = id achieves this behavior.
> >
> > I can not agree to this view completely because of the meaning that is connected
> > with these variable identifiers.
> >
> > Both metavariables share the kind “expression”. So I can imagine
> > that there is an intersection for the source code match possibility.
> > But one was intentionally restricted to the kind “local idexpression” so far.
> >
> > Which data element should not get reassigned here (before a corresponding
> > null pointer check)?
> >
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> We did some experiments:
> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> +... when != e = id
> ...
> Or:
> ...
> + ... when != id = e
>
> The number of issuses found by these two methods is the same.
> When != e = id achieves this behavior.
They are the same because neither issue arises. I would have a hard time
saying which one is more reasonable to test, since both are extremely
unlikely.
julia
>
> In addition, we feel that we should probably accept this patch first, use it to find more memory leaks, and solve the actual problems in the kernel code.
> As for the patch itself, we can continue to pursue perfect in the process of using it to solve practical problems.
>
> Regards,
> Wen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-18 6:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-16 16:05 [Cocci] [PATCH v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() Wen Yang
2019-02-16 16:33 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-16 18:39 ` [Cocci] [v6] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 2:32 ` [Cocci] 答复: " Wen Yang
2019-02-17 7:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 9:50 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v6] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 11:37 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 11:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 11:48 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:00 ` [Cocci] [v6] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:05 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:20 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:52 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 13:14 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 3:22 ` wen.yang99
2019-02-18 6:43 ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2019-02-18 8:19 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 2:14 ` wen.yang99
2019-02-19 7:04 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-19 8:12 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 8:29 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 9:09 ` wen.yang99
2019-02-19 9:30 ` Markus Elfring
2019-03-06 11:18 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 21:40 ` Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.21.1902180740550.3111@hadrien \
--to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
--cc=cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
--cc=wen.yang99@zte.com.cn \
--cc=yellowriver2010@hotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).