Re: [cocci] [v3 1/2] coccinelle: locks: add missing_mutex_init.cocci script

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

>> Would it be relevant to use the SmPL construct “<+... … ...+>”?
> Not in a structure definition.


Will further explanations become helpful for this functionality?



>> Please take another look at mentioned implementation details for
>> the clarification of such communication difficulties.
>>
>> A)
>> position p != {r2.p};
>>
>> B)
>> position p != find_member.p;
> OK, both are fine.  If there are multiple positions that p should be
> different from then the {} would be required.


I got the impression that different test results are involved.

Do you expect that identical results should be produced
(also according to the selection of such a SmPL constraint variant)?

Can this SmPL constraint be omitted because of an other data processing approach?


>> How do you think about an opposite source code search order?
>>
>> Would you like to search for function calls which require initialised
>> data structures before any additional source code analysis?
> It doesn't make much sense to have a mutex without initializing it.

It is nice that some programming mistakes can be found also by the means of
the semantic patch language.
Limitations of the Coccinelle software will trigger further development
considerations accordingly, won't they?

Can you find a source code search order more desirable than other directions?

Regards,
Markus