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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/