From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:28:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cb490cf4-425b-ad33-935a-22c6f3bcc1d2@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201907041103003504524@zte.com.cn>
> We tested and found that both <...x...> and <+... x ...+> variants work fine.
Is the difference in the functionality from this SmPL construct clear already?
> We use <... x ...> instead of <+... x ...+> here to eliminate the following false positives:
Do we stumble on another software design challenge?
For which function parameter will the specified variable be required finally?
> 486 asd = v4l2_async_notifier_add_fwnode_subdev(
> 487 &camss->notifier, of_fwnode_handle(remote), ---> v4l2_async_notifier_add_fwnode_subdev will pass remote to camss->notifier.
> 488 sizeof(*csd));
Should any more special cases be taken better into account?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-04 6:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-28 2:58 [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put Wen Yang
2019-06-28 9:38 ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-28 11:07 ` Julia Lawall
2019-06-28 14:16 ` [Cocci] [v2] " Markus Elfring
2019-06-28 14:16 ` Markus Elfring
2019-07-04 3:03 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingof_node_put wen.yang99
2019-07-04 6:28 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-07-05 5:29 ` Julia Lawall
2019-07-05 5:57 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic code search formissingof_node_put wen.yang99
2019-07-05 6:17 ` Julia Lawall
2019-07-05 6:45 ` [Cocci] [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put Markus Elfring
2019-06-29 7:40 ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-29 7:49 ` Julia Lawall
2019-06-29 8:35 ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-29 19:30 ` [Cocci] [v2] Coccinelle: Testing SmPL constraints Markus Elfring
2019-07-04 2:41 ` [Cocci] 答复: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingof_node_put wen.yang99
2019-07-04 5:40 ` [Cocci] [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put 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=cb490cf4-425b-ad33-935a-22c6f3bcc1d2@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
--cc=wang.yi59@zte.com.cn \
--cc=wen.yang99@zte.com.cn \
/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).