Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device() | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:40:53 +0100 |
| |
> Reviewed-by: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
I have got doubts that my code review comments qualify already for this tag. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=1f947a7a011fcceb14cb912f5481a53b18f1879a#n565
> Cc: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
I assume that Masahiro Yamada will also need to get explicitly informed for a possible patch integration.
> v3->v2: > - reduction of a bit of redundant C code within SmPL search specifications. > - consider the message construction without using the extra Python variable “msg”
I find it nice that you would like to take this information into account.
> + when != e4 = (T1)platform_get_drvdata(id) > +( > +
Should a blank line be omitted at such a source code place?
> + return > +( id > +| (T2)dev_get_drvdata(&id->dev) > +| (T3)platform_get_drvdata(id) > +);
It seems that you would like to express a different coding style. Would anybody like to reconsider the position once more for semicolons in nested disjunctions for such a SmPL search specification?
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], "ERROR: missing put_device; of_find_device_by_node on line " + p1[0].line + " and return without releasing.")
Your willingness for such a rearrangement is interesting. How do you think about to move the long message parameter to a subsequent line?
Regards, Markus
| |