Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:10:12 +0100 |
| |
> In a function, for a local variable returned by calling > of_find_device_by_node(),
I suggest to reconsider this information once more.
1. Will an other wording be more appropriate for the storage of a function return value?
2. Can the restriction “local” be omitted?
3. Will any macros be involved eventually?
> c, for the rest of the situation, the current function should release the > reference by calling put_device,
Can it happen that on other function will perform the desired reference release?
> this code search will report the > corresponding error message.
Rewording? A code search can report an error with a specific confidence.
> v5->v4:
Such version information would be sufficient also without arrows, wouldn't it?
> - add a SPDX identifierfix
Would you like to fix a typo at the end?
> +@script:python depends on report@ > +p1 << search.p1; > +p2 << search.p2; > +@@ > + > +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], "ERROR: missing put_device; " > + + "call of_find_device_by_node on line " > + + p1[0].line > + + ", but without a corresponding object release " > + + "within this function.")
I find your interpretation of my reminder for the preferred avoidance of split string literals interesting somehow.
Can the following source code variant be more appropriate?
+coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], + "WARNING: missing put_device - of_find_device_by_node() call on line " + + p1[0].line + + ", but without a corresponding object release within this function.")
Will any more advanced error diagnostics be eventually developed?
Regards, Markus
| |