Coccinelle spatch version 1.1.1 reports the following:
warning: line 134: should no_llseek be a metavariable?
warning: line 141: should noop_llseek be a metavariable?
warning: line 223: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
warning: line 290: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
warning: line 338: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
So, introduce these as symbols to be specific C identifier to match.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]>
---
based on: next-20220404
Changes since V1:
* Switch from identifier to more specific symbol
V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
index df00d6619b06..d33732f35710 100644
--- a/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
@@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ identifier llseek_f;
@ has_no_llseek @
identifier fops0.fops;
+symbol no_llseek;
@@
struct file_operations fops = {
.llseek = no_llseek,
@@ -136,6 +137,7 @@ identifier fops0.fops;
@ has_noop_llseek @
identifier fops0.fops;
+symbol noop_llseek;
@@
struct file_operations fops = {
.llseek = noop_llseek,
@@ -216,6 +218,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;
@ report_rw depends on report @
identifier fops_rw.openfunc;
+symbol nonseekable_open;
position p1;
@@
openfunc(...) {
@@ -283,6 +286,7 @@ identifier stream_reader.readstream;
@ report_r depends on report @
identifier fops_r.openfunc;
+symbol nonseekable_open;
position p1;
@@
openfunc(...) {
@@ -331,6 +335,7 @@ identifier stream_writer.writestream;
@ report_w depends on report @
identifier fops_w.openfunc;
+symbol nonseekable_open;
position p1;
@@
openfunc(...) {
--
2.31.1