Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:34:17 -0500
From:   Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
CC:     Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <cocci@inria.fr>,
        Kirill Smelkov <kirr@nexedi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: api/stream_open: Introduce metavariables for
 checks
Message-ID: <20220405123417.n6mdou64qidgsfo5@doing>
References: <20220404215926.14811-1-nm@ti.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204050816560.2185@hadrien>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204050816560.2185@hadrien>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: bulk

On 08:17-20220405, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> 
> > Coccinelle spatch version 1.1.1 reports the following:
> > warning: line 134: should no_llseek be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 141: should noop_llseek be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 223: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 290: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> > warning: line 338: should nonseekable_open be a metavariable?
> >
> > So, introduce the metavariable similar to other check instances.
> 
> This changes the semantic from matching the specific thing to anything.
> So are you sure that it is what is wanted?  If it should always be the
> specific thing, then you can get rid of the warning using eg symbol
> no_llseek.

Aaah thank you. Will post a v2 with s/identifier/symbol. I still need to
grok the nuance between the two in [1]. Thanks for clarifying.

[...]

[1] https://coccinelle.gitlabpages.inria.fr/website/docs/main_grammar.html
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D