On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, [email protected] wrote:
> > > I would have a hard time saying which one is more reasonable to test,
> > I suggest to reconsider the interpretation of this software situation once more.
> > > since both are extremely unlikely.
> > I disagree to this view because two ellipses were intentionally specified
> > in published SmPL scripts.
> > So some software developers found these “special use cases” important enough.
> > >> In addition, we feel that we should probably accept this patch first,
> > I disagree to this imagination because I would prefer to integrate a source code variant
> > without a bug (which was copied from a version on 2013-05-08 by Petr Strnad).
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/coccinelle/free/pci_free_consistent.cocci?id=f7b167113753e95ae61383e234f8d10142782ace#n12
> > I hope that nicer run time behaviour can become also relevant here.
>
> Both cases are extremely unlikely.
> Although we have tested these two methods in the existing kernel code,
> considering the evolution of the kernel code, these special cases may occur, so we are willing to take them into account.
> We plan to modify the code like this:
>
> id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
> -... when != e = id
> +... when != e = (T)id
> + when != id = (T)e
This change is fine with me.
julia
>
> Do you have any other questions?
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Wen
>> Although we have tested these two methods in the existing kernel code,
>> considering the evolution of the kernel code, these special cases may occur, so we are willing to take them into account.
>> We plan to modify the code like this:
>>
>> id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
>> -... when != e = id
>> +... when != e = (T)id
>> + when != id = (T)e
>
> This change is fine with me.
Thanks for another positive feedback on such software implementation details.
Regards,
Markus