On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A patch on a topic like “[next] lkdtm: remove redundant initialization of ret”
> caught also my software development attention.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/14/265
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1088971/
> https://lore.kernel.o
Hello,
I became interested in another source code transformation again.
I would like to move a bit of common code to the end of a function
implementation
with the help of the following script for the semantic patch language.
@replacement@
expression info, result;
identifier target, work;
type t
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I still don't see the point of specifying return. Why not just S, where S
> > is a statement metavariable?
>
> Do you find the following SmPL change specification more appropriate?
It looks better.
>
> @deletion depends on patch@
> expression e;
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 05:53:27PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Convert the various documents at the driver-model, preparing
> them to be part of the driver-api book.
>
> The conversion is actually:
> - add blank lines and identation in order to identify paragraphs;
> - fix tables mar
> I still don't see the point of specifying return. Why not just S, where S
> is a statement metavariable?
Do you find the following SmPL change specification more appropriate?
@deletion depends on patch@
expression e;
statement s;
@@
e = devm_ioremap_resource(...);
if (IS_ERR(e))
(
-{
- dev
> I still don't see the point of specifying return. Why not just S, where S
> is a statement metavariable?
Do you find the following SmPL change specification more appropriate?
@deletion depends on patch@
expression e;
statement s;
@@
e = devm_ioremap_resource(...);
if (IS_ERR(e))
(
-{
- dev
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I think that something like
> >
> > if (IS_ERR(e))
> > {
> > <+...
> > *dev_err(...)
> > ...+>
> > }
> >
> > would be more appropriate. Whether there is a return or not doesn't
> > really matter.
>
> Do you find the following SmPL change specifica
> I think that something like
>
> if (IS_ERR(e))
> {
> <+...
> *dev_err(...)
> ...+>
> }
>
> would be more appropriate. Whether there is a return or not doesn't
> really matter.
Do you find the following SmPL change specification useful and acceptable?
@deletion depends on patch@
expression e;
