From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5874C43381 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2467C21927 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:55:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2467C21927 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lip6.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id x1F6tIgs028771 ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC5976F7; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10CD476F3 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id x1F6tFQc004970 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:15 +0100 (CET) X-pt: isis.lip6.fr X-Addr-Warning: ATTENTION - Votre correspondant a fourni une adresse d'enveloppe @lip6.fr, mais ce message ne provient pas de lip6.fr ! postmaster@lip6.fr. X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,371,1544482800"; d="scan'208";a="369514453" Received: from abo-58-107-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.107.58]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Feb 2019 07:55:14 +0100 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:14 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: wen.yang99@zte.com.cn In-Reply-To: <201902151452197117145@zte.com.cn> Message-ID: References: 1550126293-27839-1-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn, 201902151422261425412@zte.com.cn, alpine.DEB.2.21.1902150723110.2896@hadrien <201902151452197117145@zte.com.cn> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:18 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:55:15 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 Cc: wang.yi59@zte.com.cn, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, michal.lkml@markovi.net, yellowriver2010@hotmail.com, nicolas.palix@imag.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device() X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote: > Hi Julia, thank you very much. > > > > >> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(), > > > > Do variables really get returned? > > > > The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere. > > > > > > Thank you very much, we will consider this situation and submit a next version to fix it. > > > > I don't know what Markus is talking about here, so I'm not sure that a > > change is needed. > > I think Markus means that we need to deal with two situations: > 1, The return value of of_find_device_by_node () is assigned to a variable, such as: > pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np); > 2, The return value of of_find_device_by_node() is assigned to a variable in a structure, such as: > dev->pdev = of_find_device_by_node(args.np); > > So I plan to modify the following to capture both cases: > -local idexpression id; > +expression id; I'm not sure that this is a good idea. There is likely no need for a put in the latter case. julia > ... > id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > > > > >> + "ERROR: missing put_device;" > > > >Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message? > > > > > > Thank you, we will change "ERROR" to "WARNING". > > > > I think ERROR is fine. If it is a real positive than it is a real > > problem. Warning is for things that look ugly, but don't have any impact > > on the execution. > > OK, I will keep it. > Thanks. > > Regards, > Wen _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci