From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
expression. Drop one initialization.
A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
// <smpl>
@forall@
idexpression *x;
identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
@@
x = f(...)
... when != x
(
x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
|
* x = f(...)
)
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
---
net/sctp/socket.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
index 67fdac9..f6d1e59 100644
--- a/net/sctp/socket.c
+++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
@@ -6359,7 +6359,7 @@ void sctp_copy_sock(struct sock *newsk, struct sock *sk,
struct sctp_association *asoc)
{
struct inet_sock *inet = inet_sk(sk);
- struct inet_sock *newinet = inet_sk(newsk);
+ struct inet_sock *newinet;
newsk->sk_type = sk->sk_type;
newsk->sk_bound_dev_if = sk->sk_bound_dev_if;
Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
>
> The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
> expression. Drop one initialization.
>
> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>
> // <smpl>
> @forall@
> idexpression *x;
> identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
> @@
>
> x = f(...)
> ... when != x
> (
> x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
> |
> * x = f(...)
> )
> // </smpl>
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> net/sctp/socket.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> index 67fdac9..f6d1e59 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> @@ -6359,7 +6359,7 @@ void sctp_copy_sock(struct sock *newsk, struct sock *sk,
> struct sctp_association *asoc)
> {
> struct inet_sock *inet = inet_sk(sk);
> - struct inet_sock *newinet = inet_sk(newsk);
> + struct inet_sock *newinet;
>
> newsk->sk_type = sk->sk_type;
> newsk->sk_bound_dev_if = sk->sk_bound_dev_if;
>
From: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:10:10 -0500
>
>
> Julia Lawall wrote:
>> From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
>>
>> The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
>> expression. Drop one initialization.
>>
>> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
>> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>>
>> // <smpl>
>> @forall@
>> idexpression *x;
>> identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
>> @@
>>
>> x = f(...)
>> ... when != x
>> (
>> x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
>> |
>> * x = f(...)
>> )
>> // </smpl>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
Julia, just like patch #3 this one had the missing final
line of the patch corrupting it, so you'll need to resubmit.
From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
expression. Drop one initialization.
A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
// <smpl>
@forall@
idexpression *x;
identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
@@
x = f(...)
... when != x
(
x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
|
* x = f(...)
)
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
---
net/sctp/socket.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
index 67fdac9..f6d1e59 100644
--- a/net/sctp/socket.c
+++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
@@ -6359,7 +6359,7 @@ void sctp_copy_sock(struct sock *newsk, struct sock *sk,
struct sctp_association *asoc)
{
struct inet_sock *inet = inet_sk(sk);
- struct inet_sock *newinet = inet_sk(newsk);
+ struct inet_sock *newinet;
newsk->sk_type = sk->sk_type;
newsk->sk_bound_dev_if = sk->sk_bound_dev_if;
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:10:10 -0500
>
> >
> >
> > Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
> >> expression. Drop one initialization.
> >>
> >> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
> >> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >>
> >> // <smpl>
> >> @forall@
> >> idexpression *x;
> >> identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
> >> @@
> >>
> >> x = f(...)
> >> ... when != x
> >> (
> >> x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
> >> |
> >> * x = f(...)
> >> )
> >> // </smpl>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> >
> > Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
>
> Julia, just like patch #3 this one had the missing final
> line of the patch corrupting it, so you'll need to resubmit.
I have generated and sent it again, but this time I don't see the problem.
If there is still a problem, perhaps you could send me back the patch you
received?
thanks,
julia
From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:22:38 +0100 (CET)
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, David Miller wrote:
>
>> From: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:10:10 -0500
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Julia Lawall wrote:
>> >> From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
>> >>
>> >> The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
>> >> expression. Drop one initialization.
>> >>
>> >> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
>> >> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
>> >>
>> >> // <smpl>
>> >> @forall@
>> >> idexpression *x;
>> >> identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
>> >> @@
>> >>
>> >> x = f(...)
>> >> ... when != x
>> >> (
>> >> x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
>> >> |
>> >> * x = f(...)
>> >> )
>> >> // </smpl>
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
>>
>> Julia, just like patch #3 this one had the missing final
>> line of the patch corrupting it, so you'll need to resubmit.
>
> I have generated and sent it again, but this time I don't see the problem.
> If there is still a problem, perhaps you could send me back the patch you
> received?
You dropped Vlad' ACK in your re-submission.
I'll fix it up this time, but please accumulate ACK's when
resubmitting patches merely for the purpose of fixing some
technical submission problem.
Thanks.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:22:38 +0100 (CET)
>
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> From: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:10:10 -0500
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> >> From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> >> >>
> >> >> The variable newinet is initialized twice to the same (side effect-free)
> >> >> expression. Drop one initialization.
> >> >>
> >> >> A simplified version of the semantic match that finds this problem is:
> >> >> (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
> >> >>
> >> >> // <smpl>
> >> >> @forall@
> >> >> idexpression *x;
> >> >> identifier f!=ERR_PTR;
> >> >> @@
> >> >>
> >> >> x = f(...)
> >> >> ... when != x
> >> >> (
> >> >> x = f(...,<+...x...+>,...)
> >> >> |
> >> >> * x = f(...)
> >> >> )
> >> >> // </smpl>
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Julia, just like patch #3 this one had the missing final
> >> line of the patch corrupting it, so you'll need to resubmit.
> >
> > I have generated and sent it again, but this time I don't see the problem.
> > If there is still a problem, perhaps you could send me back the patch you
> > received?
>
> You dropped Vlad' ACK in your re-submission.
>
> I'll fix it up this time, but please accumulate ACK's when
> resubmitting patches merely for the purpose of fixing some
> technical submission problem.
>
> Thanks.
OK, I will keep that in mind.
Is the new one better than the old one? Because in my local copies, they
are the same...
julia
From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:49:10 +0100 (CET)
> Is the new one better than the old one? Because in my local copies, they
> are the same...
The new one worked and I applied it.