Hi Markus,
> > We find these functions by using the following script:
>
> Why would you like to keep this SmPL code in the commit description?
>
> I would prefer software evolution in an other direction.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/44be5924-26ca-5106-aa25-3cbc3343a...@web.de/
> https://lkml.o
> > > > > +x = @p1\(of_find_all_nodes\|
> > > >
> > > > I would find this SmPL disjunction easier to read without the usage
> > > > of extra backslashes.
> > > >
> > > > +x =
> > > > +(of_…
> > > > +|of_…
> > > > +)@p1(...);
> > >
> > > Did you actually test this? I doubt that a position metavaria
> > > +x = @p1\(of_find_all_nodes\|
> >
> > I would find this SmPL disjunction easier to read without the usage
> > of extra backslashes.
> >
> > +x =
> > +(of_…
> > +|of_…
> > +)@p1(...);
>
> Did you actually test this? I doubt that a position metavariable can be
> put on a ) of a disjunction.
>
> > The counter must be decremented after the last usage of a device node.
>
> Thanks for your next try to improve the software situation
> also in this area.
>
>
> > We find these functions by using the following SmPL:
>
> Would it be nicer to use the word “script” also here?
>
OK, we will re
> > We currently use the following Ocaml script to automatically
> > collect functions that need to be considered.
> >
> > @initialize:ocaml@
> > @@
> >
> > let relevant_str = "use of_node_put() on it when done"
>
> I suggest to reconsider this search pattern.
>
> The mentioned words are distribu
> > 2, A general method.
> > We also try to get the list of functions to consider by writing a SmPL,
> > but this method is not feasible at present, because it is not easy to parse
> > the comment
> > header information of these functions.
>
> The situation was improved once more also for the Coc
> Subject: Re: [4/5] Coccinelle: put_device: Extend when constraints for
> twoSmPL ellipses
> >> Can you agree to any information which I presented in the commit message?
>
> Do you find this description inappropriate?
>
>
> >>> You don't need so many type metavariables.
> >>
> >> It seems that
Hi Markus,
Thanks for the review.
> > The call to of_parse_phandle()/of_find_node_by_name() ... returns a node
> > pointer with refcount incremented thus it must be explicitly decremented
> > after the last usage.
> >
> > This SmPL is also looking for places where there is an of_node_put on
> >
> > Do you have any other questions?
>
> Obviously, yes.
> I am curious if this development discussion and code review will trigger
> further software adjustments.
> I guess that you will need additional time to reconsider specific items
> from recent feedback.
>
> Will corrections become relevan
> > I would have a hard time saying which one is more reasonable to test,
> I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of this software situation once
> more.
> > since both are extremely unlikely.
> I disagree to this view because two ellipses were intentionally specified
> in published SmPL scr
> > when != e = id achieves this behavior.
>
> I can not agree to this view completely because of the meaning that is
> connected
> with these variable identifiers.
>
> Both metavariables share the kind “expression”. So I can imagine
> that there is an intersection for the source code match poss
11 matches
Mail list logo
