Re: [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()
From: Julia Lawall
Date: Fri Feb 15 2019 - 01:55:20 EST
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Julia, thank you very much.
> > > >> 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.
> I think Markus means that we need to deal with two situations:
> 1, The return value of of_find_device_by_node () is assigned to a variable, such as:
> pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> 2, The return value of of_find_device_by_node() is assigned to a variable in a structure, such as:
> dev->pdev = of_find_device_by_node(args.np);
> So I plan to modify the following to capture both cases:
> -local idexpression id;
> +expression id;
I'm not sure that this is a good idea. There is likely no need for a put
in the latter case.
> id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> > > >> + "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.
> OK, I will keep it.