lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
From
Date
> It's interesting to get the function list automatically.

I occasionally imported code data into list variables
or even database tables.


> I'll try to parse the drivers/of/base.c file based on comments like this
> "* Returns a node pointer with refcount incremented, use
> * of_node_put() on it when done."
> to automatically get the name of the function that needs to be checked.

Will feature requests like the following become more interesting?

* Advanced data processing for source code comments
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/57

* Add a metavariable for the handling of source code
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/140


> We will continue to analyze the code of coccinelle

How will the understanding evolve for the OCaml source code
of this software?


> to confirm whether this false positive is a bug in coccinelle.

I am also curious on how the corresponding clarification will be continued.

By the way:
Yesterday I stumbled on another questionable software behaviour
while trying to apply an update suggestion from our development discussion
on the topic “[v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()”.
https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680299@zte.com.cn/
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005620.html


> But this statement is currently needed here.

Will the need be reconsidered?


I got another development concern here:
You propose to use a SmPL conjunction in the rule “r1”.
How does it fit to the previous exclusion specification “when != of_node_put(x)”?

Regards,
Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-09 10:12    [W:0.044 / U:33.352 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site