Received: by 2002:ac0:946b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j40csp1444623imj; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 06:06:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbNoSynNWMRJtzRF9akWAo0UwkB1pQqx01Qk+rTRt5q/09UtfDMsy/p3ynzc6SAgQzjKn8X X-Received: by 2002:a63:854a:: with SMTP id u71mr14069226pgd.141.1550412382972; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 06:06:22 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550412382; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=WtnsCsCT3SphgsiTG83s1qp9D/xr2Kx9gC5N6b1d+w/8lfrB7UkT9QiquUmc4yZGWP nHSjaXizKDBfppU51AgWDbITfZD07O/Pb2oynV1rZvohrOpbfuCCg2tgQxAbqKjZNl3C 25KhOCkuqNfn8gUTiTRWKnYWNZC/PlEeWMRxXaBE+f9qq8PAyW101DDM7Ji+RnNJbZNh IWCcYyFRgqWrQdbyK+3T2HcGpSKm+5dviI9Aiy4oZiIQT8gPL/M14WMEgL2GkxJZU9l5 N23BEKj3BVzQNNlQCAT54QZNfvZSed3x0PNBr5284Ffi0ktQZVPNPMZL/R7hYMJ4AXqt 31HQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=ZbmJCiPSzF9Z+VWWiPekWVrpgF9cDdurPHhTE0lvVi8=; b=l/Gt2NFcWFfzSVcDsiISvTTN3pQY6hDC6l10G0OIoJD5/3Kf9rOPfAxlWvlWQaDxwF 8rN1vdNxgc6VIB9tmTxRgqHzoqjnciLPI9mjWwHkKAl1icdsMmUPOJaKN4GXa8JZqXqz 78ZeWNx+w2LoCiYo9Ac3creH3kqyBmM79Z5BshKgyztAodiwwQztYGFuU71UDMKjNEjO zbgr5ihBAeFW8Hjh7oTrr1jeusqMDBOqbUSbl8HmTk3fjBaTlMoSgpayK4sxO87llr7C Tza0O4tNrcEjf5i6jQV5+JZ36fqexhfQfNMUUzlu8/dEtI3faCXUWEhzomNqaAhybFTB HreQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j22si10200380pfi.252.2019.02.17.06.06.06; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 06:06:22 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728623AbfBQMGC (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:06:02 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:47887 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725795AbfBQMGB (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2019 07:06:01 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,380,1544482800"; d="scan'208";a="369732438" Received: from abo-58-107-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.107.58]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Feb 2019 13:05:58 +0100 Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 13:05:57 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring cc: Wen Yang , Gilles Muller , Nicolas Palix , Michal Marek , Masahiro Yamada , Wen Yang , Cheng Shengyu , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Coccinelle Subject: Re: [v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() In-Reply-To: <782fd1c3-80ff-a296-b3a2-351257bb13b3@web.de> Message-ID: References: <8e7ba7c0-b7fe-a1f0-d28b-0c716ecbcfdb@web.de> <1c152067-0135-79d7-1285-4bb9925054c8@web.de> <782fd1c3-80ff-a296-b3a2-351257bb13b3@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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Would you dare to interpret my update suggestion (reordering of two identifiers) > >> as a required SmPL script correction? > > > > I didn't suggest to reorder anything. > > This is obvious according to your acknowledgement for the sixth version > of this evolving SmPL script. > > > > Both are needed. > > If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion > for a SmPL ellipsis: > Can we agree on a correct order? I don't get your point. There is no correct order. Each order expresses something different. The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one that is more likely in practice. julia > > > > And, no I don't consider it to be a required suggestion. > > Have we got a different view about an implementation detail at this place? > > > > In practice, reassigning such a variable is very unlikely. > > This can be. > > Regards, > Markus >