lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
From
Date
>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)

>>> +if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>>> +... when != put_device(&id->dev)
>> …
>>> + when != if (id) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... }
>> …
>>
>> I would interpret this SmPL code in the way that the if statement
>> for the pointer check is “optional” in this line.
>> Is it an extra and redundant SmPL specification when the reference
>> release function could eventually be found just anywhere within
>> an implementation?
>
> The proposed when code is correct.

I agree that this SmPL code can work in the way it was designed.


> It is not redundant, because it checks for a particular control-flow pattern.

It took another moment until I dared to express a different software
development opinion also on this implementation detail.

Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement?

Regards,
Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-15 14:17    [W:0.034 / U:11.448 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site