From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars-Peter Clausen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] spi: Add helper functions for setting up transfers Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: <50EE8FFD.2000000@metafoo.de> References: <1357752671-30222-1-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Grant Likely , spi-devel-general-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Jonathan Cameron , linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Julia Lawall Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-iio-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On 01/10/2013 09:53 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: >> +@r1@ >> +identifier fn; >> +identifier xfers; >> +@@ >> +fn(...) >> +{ >> + ... >> +( >> + struct spi_transfer xfers[...]; >> +| >> + struct spi_transfer xfers[]; >> +) >> + ... >> +} > > Can it happen that there would be more than one spi_transfer or spi_message > variable per function? This semantic patch will only treat the case where > there is only one, because the ... before an after the variable declaration > won't match another declaration of the same form. > > julia I guess it could happen, but I would consider it to be very rare. There are a few examples of multiple transfers in the kernel. But most of them look like struct spi_message msg; struct spi_transfer xfer_foo; struct spi_transfer xfer_bar; ... spi_message_add_tail(&xfer_foo, &msg); spi_message_add_tail(&xfer_bar, &msg); So the transformation can't be applied here anyway. Do you have an idea how to change the rule to work with multiple transfers/messages per function? If it would make the cocci file more complex I wouldn't bother to take care of it, since it basically has no practical use. - Lars