All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 10:10:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <141163ed-a78b-6d89-e6cd-3442adda7073@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201905090947015772925@zte.com.cn>

> It's interesting to get the function list automatically.

I occasionally imported code data into list variables
or even database tables.


> I'll try to parse the drivers/of/base.c file based on comments like this
> "* Returns a node pointer with refcount incremented, use
> * of_node_put() on it when done."
> to automatically get the name of the function that needs to be checked.

Will feature requests like the following become more interesting?

* Advanced data processing for source code comments
  https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/57

* Add a metavariable for the handling of source code
  https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/140


> We will continue to analyze the code of coccinelle

How will the understanding evolve for the OCaml source code
of this software?


> to confirm whether this false positive is a bug in coccinelle.

I am also curious on how the corresponding clarification will be continued.

By the way:
Yesterday I stumbled on another questionable software behaviour
while trying to apply an update suggestion from our development discussion
on the topic “[v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()”.
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn/
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005620.html


> But this statement is currently needed here.

Will the need be reconsidered?


I got another development concern here:
You propose to use a SmPL conjunction in the rule “r1”.
How does it fit to the previous exclusion specification “when != of_node_put(x)”?

Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 10:10:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <141163ed-a78b-6d89-e6cd-3442adda7073@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201905090947015772925@zte.com.cn>

> It's interesting to get the function list automatically.

I occasionally imported code data into list variables
or even database tables.


> I'll try to parse the drivers/of/base.c file based on comments like this
> "* Returns a node pointer with refcount incremented, use
> * of_node_put() on it when done."
> to automatically get the name of the function that needs to be checked.

Will feature requests like the following become more interesting?

* Advanced data processing for source code comments
  https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/57

* Add a metavariable for the handling of source code
  https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/140


> We will continue to analyze the code of coccinelle

How will the understanding evolve for the OCaml source code
of this software?


> to confirm whether this false positive is a bug in coccinelle.

I am also curious on how the corresponding clarification will be continued.

By the way:
Yesterday I stumbled on another questionable software behaviour
while trying to apply an update suggestion from our development discussion
on the topic “[v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()”.
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn/
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005620.html


> But this statement is currently needed here.

Will the need be reconsidered?


I got another development concern here:
You propose to use a SmPL conjunction in the rule “r1”.
How does it fit to the previous exclusion specification “when != of_node_put(x)”?

Regards,
Markus

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-09  8:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-07  8:12 [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put Wen Yang
2019-05-07  8:12 ` Wen Yang
2019-05-07 15:27 ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-05-07 15:27   ` Markus Elfring
2019-05-09  1:47   ` [Cocci] " wen.yang99
2019-05-09  8:10     ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2019-05-09  8:10       ` Coccinelle: " Markus Elfring
     [not found] <201905171432571474636@zte.com.cn>
2019-05-17  7:14 ` Julia Lawall
2019-05-17  8:22   ` [Cocci] " Markus Elfring
2019-05-20  9:33   ` Pavel Machek
2019-05-20  9:52     ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2019-05-20 17:20       ` Sasha Levin
2019-05-20 19:53         ` Julia Lawall
2019-05-20 20:11           ` Markus Elfring
2019-05-17  8:10 ` Markus Elfring
2019-05-18 14:43 ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-04  5:08 ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-04  5:50   ` wen.yang99
2019-06-04  6:36     ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-04  8:55       ` wen.yang99
2019-06-04  9:08         ` Markus Elfring
2019-06-04 11:28     ` 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=141163ed-a78b-6d89-e6cd-3442adda7073@web.de \
    --to=markus.elfring@web.de \
    --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
    --cc=wang.yi59@zte.com.cn \
    --cc=wen.yang99@zte.com.cn \
    /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.