[Cocci] Easy search for elements besides binary operators with SmPL

[elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)]

>>> Maybe put parentheses around the second argument.  An isomorphism will
>>> drop them and you will avoid whatever parsing issue is being encountered.
>>
>> I do not observe a desired improvement after such a SmPL code adjustment.
> 
> Your change is not what I suggested either.  The second argument starts to
> the right of one comma and ends to the left of the next one.

I interpreted the ?second one? as belonging to the ellipsis in the binary
operator specification (for a moment).

Now I observe that the following SmPL script variants work as desired
in principle.

@find_last_option@
expression target;
identifier action;
@@
 target = action(...,
                 ( ...
*                | __GFP_NOFAIL
                 )
                );


@find_flag@
expression target;
identifier action;
@@
 target = action(...,
                 ( ...
*                | __GFP_NOFAIL
                 | ...
                 ),
                 ...);


I find it just strange that extra parentheses are needed in such an use case
at the moment.

Regards,
Markus