Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:02:18 +0100 (CET)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
cc:     Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Wen Yang <yellowriver2010@hotmail.com>,
        Cheng Shengyu <cheng.shengyu@zte.com.cn>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4] coccinelle: semantic patch for missing put_device()
In-Reply-To: <f4bc7f71-efee-5e0f-3209-82681ddc85be@web.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902150900270.2896@hadrien>
References: <201902151452197117145@zte.com.cn> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902150754380.2896@hadrien> <f4bc7f71-efee-5e0f-3209-82681ddc85be@web.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> So I plan to modify the following to capture both cases:
> >> -local idexpression id;
> >> +expression id;
> >
> > I'm not sure that this is a good idea.
>
> Why have you got doubts here?
>
>
> > There is likely no need for a put in the latter case.
>
> I have got understanding difficulties for such information.
> What did you try to express with this sentence finally?

The whole goal of the semantic patch is to ensure that put_device is
called when needed.  If the value is stored in a structure, then someone
else will likely take care of calling put_device later when the structure
is destroyed.

julia