From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:42:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Message-Id: <1c152067-0135-79d7-1285-4bb9925054c8@web.de>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <HK0PR02MB36344E2B29CEB195892F6420B2610@HK0PR02MB3634.apcprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <8e7ba7c0-b7fe-a1f0-d28b-0c716ecbcfdb@web.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902171235570.2444@hadrien>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902171235570.2444@hadrien>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@hotmail.com>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>, Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn>, Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>

>>> +@search exists@
>>> +local idexpression id;
>>> +expression x,e,e1;
>>> +position p1,p2;
>>> +type T,T1,T2;
>>> +@@
>>> +
>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
>>> +... when != e = id
>>
>> I suggest to increase your software development attention also for
>> another implementation detail.
>> Source code analysis triggers challenges for safe data flow handling.
>> the semantic patch language supports search specifications for
>> the exclusion of specific assignments.
>>
>> Does this SmPL code contain a questionable order for the source
>> and target metavariables?
>> Can the following variant be more appropriate?
>>
>> + ... when != id = e
>
> This is possible, but I think unlikely.

Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two identifiers)
as a required SmPL script correction?

Regards,
Markus