lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()
From
Date
> 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-13 16:42    [W:0.090 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site