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

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1511 bytes --]



On Sat, 2 Aug 2025, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>>> How does the “shortest path” fit to the statement “action_lock(&blockage2);”
> >>>> from the if branch in your software view?
> >>> I explained it already.  If you have A ... B, Coccinelle doe not allow A
> >>> or B to occur in the code matched by ...
> >>
> >> How many lock calls are close enough for the searched first lock call?
> >>
> >> Should the lock call from the if branch be excluded then
> >> because another lock call was found before?
> >
> > No.
>
> I would like to resolve this data processing disagreement somehow.
>
>
> >      The one in the if is matching with the call closest to it,
>
> I interpret this hit as a false positive.
> (The first call 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 don't understand why you think that.

julia


>
>
>
> >                                         There are two matches at two
> > different places.
>
> I would expect that only one match should be appropriate here.
>
>
> >                    Each leads to highlighting a different lock call.
>
> The source file example “test-action_locks-20250725.c” contains only one lock call combination
> with matching expressions, doesn't it?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>