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 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 59905C43381 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:52:52 +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 AF2802195D for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:52:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AF2802195D 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 x1HCqVgI029684 ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CD376F4; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:31 +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 8DB1C76E1 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:29 +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 x1HCqTrT020727 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:29 +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="5.58,380,1544482800"; d="scan'208";a="369734265" 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; 17 Feb 2019 13:52:28 +0100 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:28 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: <10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de> Message-ID: References: <8e7ba7c0-b7fe-a1f0-d28b-0c716ecbcfdb@web.de> <1c152067-0135-79d7-1285-4bb9925054c8@web.de> <782fd1c3-80ff-a296-b3a2-351257bb13b3@web.de> <10836645-5b19-a748-56d7-c0572a76ab4d@web.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-712726055-1550407948=:2444" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:33 +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]); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:52:29 +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: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek , Wen Yang , Nicolas Palix , LKML , Coccinelle , Cheng Shengyu , Wen Yang Subject: Re: [Cocci] [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search 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: , Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-712726055-1550407948=:2444 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> 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? The desired behavior is to check whether the allocated value is saved in some other variable (typically a structure field) and thus it doesn't need to be freed just because the original local variable goes out of scope at the end of the function. when != e = id achieves this behavior. julia --8323329-712726055-1550407948=:2444 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci --8323329-712726055-1550407948=:2444--