Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()

[Markus Elfring]

>> 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.

â
+@search exists@
+local idexpression id;
+expression x,e,e1;
+position p1,p2;
â
+@@
+
+id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
+... when != e = id
â

Or:

â
+ ... when != id = e
â


Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour?

Regards,
Markus