Re: [cocci] Searching for lock calls without unlocking (with SmPL)?

[Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>]

>>>      The one in the if is matching with the call closest to it,
>>
>> I interpret this hit as a false positive.
>> (The first lock call in the if branch is not the relevant companion call
>> from the function implementation.)
>>
>>
>>>                                                                 not the
>>> call at the beginning of the function.
>>
>> This is an essential requirement for the discussed source code search pattern,
>> isn't it?
> 
> No.

I hope still that a better common understanding can be achieved.


>      I don't understand why you think that.

The source code search pattern tries to find a pair of lock calls.
Is the passed expression determined for the metavariable “y” after the second
lock call was found at the beginning of the function implementation?

May these two calls be kept close together also in the desired search result?

Regards,
Markus