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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,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 85F7EC43381 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:05:02 +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 2799A21848 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:05:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2799A21848 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 x1J74bwg018603 ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7216770E; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:37 +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 D86BA76FB for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:35 +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 x1J74WWp005855 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:32 +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="5.58,387,1544482800"; d="scan'208";a="369952150" 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; 19 Feb 2019 08:04:32 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:31 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: wen.yang99@zte.com.cn In-Reply-To: <201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn> Message-ID: References: 201902181122502228026@zte.com.cn, ab463e94-287a-6188-6795-06eeb832e861@web.de <201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570" X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:37 +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]); Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:04:32 +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. --8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > I would have a hard time saying which one is more reasonable to test, > > I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of this software situation once more. > > > since both are extremely unlikely. > > I disagree to this view because two ellipses were intentionally specified > > in published SmPL scripts. > > So some software developers found these “special use cases” important enough. > > >> In addition, we feel that we should probably accept this patch first, > > I disagree to this imagination because I would prefer to integrate a source code variant > > without a bug (which was copied from a version on 2013-05-08 by Petr Strnad). > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci?id=f7b167113753e95ae61383e234f8d10142782ace#n12 > > I hope that nicer run time behaviour can become also relevant here. > > Both cases are extremely unlikely. > Although we have tested these two methods in the existing kernel code, > considering the evolution of the kernel code, these special cases may occur, so we are willing to take them into account. > We plan to modify the code like this: > > id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > -... when != e = id > +... when != e = (T)id > + when != id = (T)e This change is fine with me. julia > > Do you have any other questions? > Thanks. > > Regards, > Wen --8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570 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 --8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570--