>… keeps a reference count on failure, …
Would you get into the mood to perform a systematic source code search
for similar function implementations according to resource clean-up?
> v2: better keyword
How do you think about to add the information “wrapper functions” here?
…
> +@r0 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@
> +expression ret,e;
> +@@
> +
> +- ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(e);
> ++ ret = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(e);
…
I suggest once more to concentrate the specification of such a change
to the desired replacement of the mentioned function name.
+ ret =
+- pm_runtime_get_sync
++ pm_runtime_resume_and_get
+ (e);
…
> + if (ret < 0)
> +- {
> +- pm_runtime_put_noidle(e);
> + S1
> +- }
> + else S2
…
I propose to put this adjustment into a disjunction for the semantic patch
language.
How do you think about to combine five SmPL rules into one?
…
> +* ret@j0 = pm_runtime_get_sync(e);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + f(...,c,...);
> +* pm_runtime_put_noidle@j1(e);
> + ...
> + } else S
…
Would you like to express in the SmPL context rules that a macro or function
call
is optional here?
Are there any opportunities to consider for the avoidance of duplicate SmPL
code?
…
> +msg = "WARNING: opportunity for pm_runtime_get_sync"
> +coccilib.org.print_todo(j0[0], msg)
…
Can the following Python code be more appropriate?
+coccilib.org.print_todo(j0[0], "WARNING: opportunity for
pm_runtime_resume_and_get")
Would you like to reconsider the message also for the SmPL report rule
accordingly?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
