From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@hotmail.com>
Cc: Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:20:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902171304520.2444@hadrien>
>> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
>> for a SmPL ellipsis:
>> Can we agree on a correct order?
>
> I don't get your point.
I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.
> There is no correct order.
I have got an other software development view here.
> Each order expresses something different.
I agree to this information.
> The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one
> that is more likely in practice.
Please check once more.
…
+@search exists@
+local idexpression id;
+expression x,e,e1;
+position p1,p2;
…
+@@
+
+id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
+... when != e = id
…
Or:
…
+ ... when != id = e
…
Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@hotmail.com>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:20:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902171304520.2444@hadrien>
>> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
>> for a SmPL ellipsis:
>> Can we agree on a correct order?
>
> I don't get your point.
I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.
> There is no correct order.
I have got an other software development view here.
> Each order expresses something different.
I agree to this information.
> The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one
> that is more likely in practice.
Please check once more.
…
+@search exists@
+local idexpression id;
+expression x,e,e1;
+position p1,p2;
…
+@@
+
+id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
+... when != e = id
…
Or:
…
+ ... when != id = e
…
Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@hotmail.com>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>,
Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:20:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902171304520.2444@hadrien>
>> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
>> for a SmPL ellipsis:
>> Can we agree on a correct order?
>
> I don't get your point.
I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.
> There is no correct order.
I have got an other software development view here.
> Each order expresses something different.
I agree to this information.
> The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one
> that is more likely in practice.
Please check once more.
…
+@search exists@
+local idexpression id;
+expression x,e,e1;
+position p1,p2;
…
+@@
+
+id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
+... when != e = id
…
Or:
…
+ ... when != id = e
…
Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-17 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ 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 16:33 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-16 18:39 ` [v6] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-16 18:39 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-16 18:39 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 2:32 ` [Cocci] 答复: " Wen Yang
2019-02-17 7:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 7:42 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 7:42 ` 答复: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code =?UTF-8?Q?_search_for_missing_p Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 9:50 ` [PATCH v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 9:50 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 9:50 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 11:37 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 11:37 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 11:37 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 11:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 11:42 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 11:42 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 11:48 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 11:48 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 11:48 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:00 ` [v6] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:00 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:00 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:05 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:05 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:05 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:20 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-02-17 12:20 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:20 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 12:52 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:52 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 12:52 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-17 13:14 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 13:14 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-17 13:14 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 3:22 ` [Cocci] " wen.yang99
2019-02-18 6:43 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-18 6:43 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-18 6:43 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-18 8:19 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 8:19 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 8:19 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 2:14 ` [Cocci] " wen.yang99
2019-02-19 7:04 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-19 7:04 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-02-19 7:04 ` Julia Lawall
2019-02-19 8:12 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 8:12 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 8:12 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 8:29 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 8:29 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 8:29 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 9:09 ` [Cocci] " wen.yang99
2019-02-19 9:30 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 9:30 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-02-19 9:30 ` Markus Elfring
2019-03-06 11:18 ` Markus Elfring
2019-03-06 11:18 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-03-06 11:18 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 21:40 ` Markus Elfring
2019-02-18 21:40 ` [Cocci] " 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=10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr \
--cc=cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
--cc=julia.lawall@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=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.