[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
> 1, A simple method.
> We did some experiments, and we could get the list of functions that need to be considered directly through this script:
> $ spatch --tokens-c drivers/of/base.c 2>&1 | grep "Tag3 " | grep "of_node_put() on it when done." | awk -F " - " '{print $1}' | grep -o "of_[[:print:]]*"

Thanks for your command demonstration.

* How are the chances to get these tags better documented?

* Would you like to combine the texts from the first two greps
in a single search pattern?

* I imagine that sort criteria can become relevant for
the determined function name list.

* Will a software build script be needed for this purpose?

> 2, A general method.
> We also try to get the list of functions to consider by writing a SmPL,
> but this method is not feasible at present, because it is not easy to parse the comment
> header information of these functions.

I am curious if corresponding software development challenges
will be picked up more.

> @r1@
> identifier fn;
> comment x;

This item is not mentioned as a key word in the manual for
the semantic patch language so far while the word is used
at seven places in this document.

> @@
> struct device_node * fn (...)
> {
> ...
> }

You can not get the desired information if a metavariable like “x”
is not actually used in the SmPL search code.

How do you think about to take corresponding source code positions
better into account?

> 3, It's probably interesting to get valuable informations from the comments of a function.

Other development tools provide better support for this data processing area.

> We will continue to learn the source code of coccinelle and try to find a way to achieve it.

How will the situation evolve here?

> Please kindly give me some help.

Do you find the following clarification request interesting?

Fix two calls for the program “ocamldoc”

> We will continue to optimize this SmPL and send a V2 version next week.

I got another development concern in the meantime.
It seems that you would like to use iteration functionality (add_if_not_present).

How will it matter here?


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-17 10:12    [W:0.026 / U:6.640 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site