Re: [PATCH v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1691 bytes --]



On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@zte.com.cn wrote:

> > How do you think about to exchange the word “patch” by “code search”
> > at affected places (and in the subject) then?
>
> Thanks, we‘ll fix it.
>
> >> 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.

>
> > * Would you like to pick any software development challenges up around
> > inter-procedural data flow (or even escape) analysis for the shown use case?
>
> We are very interested in doing this work, but currently coccinelle may
> not support data flow analysis, and we hope to contribute a little.
>
> > Would you like to add a SPDX identifier?
>
> OK, we will add a SPDX identifierfix soon.
>
> >> + "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.

julia

> >> + + " call of_find_device_by_node on line "
> >I find that such a split string literal can be unwanted.
>
> Thank you, we will fix it soon.
>
> >> + + " and return without releasing.")
> >Possible rewording?
> >+ + " but without a corresponding object release within this function.")
>
> Thanks, we will modify it according to your suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Wen