From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Julia Lawall Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:04:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570" List-Id: References: 201902181122502228026@zte.com.cn, ab463e94-287a-6188-6795-06eeb832e861@web.de <201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn> In-Reply-To: <201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn> To: wen.yang99@zte.com.cn Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, michal.lkml@markovi.net, yellowriver2010@hotmail.com, nicolas.palix@imag.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Markus.Elfring@web.de, cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > I would have a hard time saying which one is more reasonable to test, > > I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of this software situation once more. > > > since both are extremely unlikely. > > I disagree to this view because two ellipses were intentionally specified > > in published SmPL scripts. > > So some software developers found these “special use cases” important enough. > > >> In addition, we feel that we should probably accept this patch first, > > I disagree to this imagination because I would prefer to integrate a source code variant > > without a bug (which was copied from a version on 2013-05-08 by Petr Strnad). > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci?id=f7b167113753e95ae61383e234f8d10142782ace#n12 > > I hope that nicer run time behaviour can become also relevant here. > > Both cases are extremely unlikely. > Although we have tested these two methods in the existing kernel code, > considering the evolution of the kernel code, these special cases may occur, so we are willing to take them into account. > We plan to modify the code like this: > > id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > -... when != e = id > +... when != e = (T)id > + when != id = (T)e This change is fine with me. julia > > Do you have any other questions? > Thanks. > > Regards, > Wen --8323329-483052161-1550559872=:2570--