Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() | From | Markus Elfring <> | Date | Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:20:51 +0100 |
| |
>> 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
| |