[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)

>>> +if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>>> +... when != put_device(&id->dev)
>> …
>>> + when != if (id) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... }
>> …
>> I would interpret this SmPL code in the way that the if statement
>> for the pointer check is “optional” in this line.
>> Is it an extra and redundant SmPL specification when the reference
>> release function could eventually be found just anywhere within
>> an implementation?
> The proposed when code is correct.

I agree that this SmPL code can work in the way it was designed.

> It is not redundant, because it checks for a particular control-flow pattern.

It took another moment until I dared to express a different software
development opinion also on this implementation detail.

Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement?


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-15 14:17    [W:0.066 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site