lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
    From
    Date
    >> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion
    >> for a SmPL ellipsis:
    >> Can we agree on a correct order?
    >
    > I don't get your point.

    I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code.


    > There is no correct order.

    I have got an other software development view here.


    > Each order expresses something different.

    I agree to this information.


    > The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one
    > that is more likely in practice.

    Please check once more.


    +@search exists@
    +local idexpression id;
    +expression x,e,e1;
    +position p1,p2;

    +@@
    +
    +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
    +... when != e = id


    Or:


    + ... when != id = e



    Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?

    Regards,
    Markus

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-02-17 13:22    [W:3.643 / U:1.920 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site