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:0.071 / U:1.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site