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 83781C43381 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:43:50 +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 D61632147C for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:43:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D61632147C 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 x1I6hXBi022333 ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2929E764A; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:33 +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 F381F75FF for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id x1I6hRw9015927 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:27 +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="5.58,383,1544482800"; d="scan'208";a="296474504" Received: from abo-58-107-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.107.58]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2019 07:43:26 +0100 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:26 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: wen.yang99@zte.com.cn In-Reply-To: <201902181122502228026@zte.com.cn> Message-ID: References: HK0PR02MB36344E2B29CEB195892F6420B2610@HK0PR02MB3634.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com, 52c07e7c-eec7-792b-0b03-b5cb46ddeab3@web.de <201902181122502228026@zte.com.cn> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-2117660207-1550472207=:3111" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:34 +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]); Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:43:27 +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.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() 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. --8323329-2117660207-1550472207=:3111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT 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 --8323329-2117660207-1550472207=:3111 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 --8323329-2117660207-1550472207=:3111--