Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
From: Julia Lawall
Date: Mon Feb 18 2019 - 01:43:34 EST
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > when != e = id achieves this behavior.
> >
> > I can not agree to this view completely because of the meaning that is connected
> > with these variable identifiers.
> >
> > Both metavariables share the kind âexpressionâ. So I can imagine
> > that there is an intersection for the source code match possibility.
> > But one was intentionally restricted to the kind âlocal idexpressionâ so far.
> >
> > Which data element should not get reassigned here (before a corresponding
> > null pointer check)?
> >
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> We did some experiments:
> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> +... when != e = id
> ...
> Or:
> ...
> + ... when != id = e
>
> The number of issuses found by these two methods is the same.
> When != e = id achieves this behavior.
They are the same because neither issue arises. I would have a hard time
saying which one is more reasonable to test, since both are extremely
unlikely.
julia
>
> In addition, we feel that we should probably accept this patch first, use it to find more memory leaks, and solve the actual problems in the kernel code.
> As for the patch itself, we can continue to pursue perfect in the process of using it to solve practical problems.
>
> Regards,
> Wen