>> +virtual report, org, context, patch
>>
>> Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
>
> This doens't matter.
Can less duplicate code be a bit nicer?
>>> +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>>> +{
>>> + <...
>>> +* return snprintf@p(...);
>>> + ...>
>>> +}
>>
>> I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783
>>
>> Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?
>
> <... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what
> is inside the <... ...>
I propose once more to distinguish better if the shown return statement
may be really treated as optional for such a source code search approach
(or not).
Regards,
Markus
