Re: [cocci] Searching for questionable call pairs (with SmPL)?

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

> What is the goal of using <+... ...+> ?  The only way you should have
> multiple releases is if there is a double lock error.  If you want to
> search for double lock errors why do it only in the case where there are
> two locks involved?
> 
> If you want to check for lock(a) lock(b) unlock(a) unlock(b), there is no
> need for <+... ...+>.  Furthermore, you need to check that there is no
> unlock of a between the lock(a) and lock(b), likewise no unlock(b) between
> lock(b) and unlock (a).

Would you get into the mood to clarify data processing challenges better
for another source code search pattern (like the following)?


@mark@
expression x;
@@
 action_lock(x);
 <+... when != action_unlock(x);
       when exists
-action_lock(x);
 ...+>


See also a corresponding source file example once more:
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/404


Questionable test result (by the software combination “Coccinelle 1.3.0” for example):
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> /usr/bin/spatch ../janitor/show_lock_calls_without_unlock4.cocci test-action_locks-20250725.c
[no diff output]


Regards,
Markus