Re: [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()
From: Julia Lawall
Date: Fri Feb 15 2019 - 01:25:45 EST
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > How do you think about to exchange the word âpatchâ by âcode searchâ
> > at affected places (and in the subject) then?
> Thanks, weâll fix it.
> >> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(),
> > Do variables really get returned?
> > The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere.
> Thank you very much, we will consider this situation and submit a next version to fix it.
I don't know what Markus is talking about here, so I'm not sure that a
change is needed.
> > * Would you like to pick any software development challenges up around
> > inter-procedural data flow (or even escape) analysis for the shown use case?
> We are very interested in doing this work, but currently coccinelle may
> not support data flow analysis, and we hope to contribute a little.
> > Would you like to add a SPDX identifier?
> OK, we will add a SPDX identifierfix soon.
> >> + "ERROR: missing put_device;"
> >Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message?
> Thank you, we will change "ERROR" to "WARNING".
I think ERROR is fine. If it is a real positive than it is a real
problem. Warning is for things that look ugly, but don't have any impact
on the execution.
> >> + + " call of_find_device_by_node on line "
> >I find that such a split string literal can be unwanted.
> Thank you, we will fix it soon.
> >> + + " and return without releasing.")
> >Possible rewording?
> >+ + " but without a corresponding object release within this function.")
> Thanks, we will modify it according to your suggestion.