[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Coccinelle: pci_free_consistent: Checking when constraints
>> I just try again to clarify if the specification of a single function call
>> exclusion can (and should) be sufficient also at this place.
> It's not sufficient.
> I explained why it's not sufficient.

Thanks for another bit of information.

> If you had made your change and tested it, it's at least highly probable
> that you would understand why it is not sufficient as well.
> You first reflex when you have a question should be to try what you are
> wondering about, not to head for the mailing list.

I got the impression that a few of our previous clarification attempts
pointed design possibilities out into other directions.

* Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put
Response by Wen Yang
17 May 2019 14:32:57 +0800 (CST)

* [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Discussion contribution by Markus Elfring

> Please stop spreading misinformation.

I find the provided software documentation still incomplete.
Thus I hope also that the situation can be improved by additional communication.

See also:
[v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()
Response by Julia Lawall
16 Feb 2019 10:36:45 +0100 (CET)

How will the software development attention evolve further around the safe handling
of code exclusion specifications together with the semantic patch language?


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-09 12:42    [W:0.048 / U:4.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site