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:   Tue, 14 May 2019 08:52:54 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
cc:     Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yi Wang <wang.yi59@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [4/5] Coccinelle: put_device: Extend when constraints for two
 SmPL ellipses
In-Reply-To: <4116e083-9e21-62d7-10b7-5cb26594144c@web.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905140849570.2567@hadrien>
References: <1553321671-27749-1-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn> <e34d47fe-3aac-5b01-055d-61d97cf50fe7@web.de> <6f08d4d7-5ffc-11c0-8200-cade7d294de6@web.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905131130530.3616@hadrien> <4116e083-9e21-62d7-10b7-5cb26594144c@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 Tue, 14 May 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> A SmPL ellipsis was specified for a search approach so that additional
> >> source code would be tolerated between an assignment to a local variable
> >> and the corresponding null pointer check.
> >>
> >> But such code should be restricted.
> >> * The local variable must not be reassigned there.
> >> * It must also not be forwarded to an other assignment target.
> >>
> >> Take additional casts for these code exclusion specifications into account
> >> together with optional parentheses.
> >
> > NACK.
>
> Can you agree to any information which I presented in the commit message?
>
>
> > You don't need so many type metavariables.
>
> It seems that the Coccinelle software can cope also with my SmPL code addition.
> You might feel uncomfortable with the suggested changes for a while.

It's ugly.  Much more ugly than msg =

>
>
> > Type metavariables in the same ... can be the same.
>
> Such information is good to know for the proper usage of specifications
> after a SmPL ellipsis.
>
> * Can it become required to identify involved source code placeholders
>   by extra metavariables?

I don't understand the question.

> * Would you like to clarify the probability any more how often the shown
>   type casts will be identical?

No idea about this one either.

Basically, if you have T && T, the two T's have to be the same, and T is
not pure.  If you have T || T, then only one will be matched and T remains
pure.  If you have T on two separate ...s then you are in the && case.  If
you have T in two branches of a disjunction or in two whens on the same
... you are in the || case.  Just as you can use the variable e1 over and
over on the same when, you can use the same T.

julia