Yes, the two-rule approach works--that's what I started with. The ioctl_ref
rule
is the anchor for a series of six follow-on rules that apply transformations to
ioctl-func decls. If I have two rules, then I need to replicate the six
follow-on
rules with trivial modifications, one for each of unlocked_ioctl and
compat_ioctl.
The unified rule using (...|...) is highly desirable to avoid duplication for
sake
of development and maintenance.
G
On 09/24/10 08:21, Julia Lawall wrote:
> It doesn't seem to allow disjunctions in structure declaration
> initializers. Can you make two rules? The .X = Y, notation is fine. You
> should always put the terminating comma.
>
> julia
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Greg McGary wrote:
>
> > Any clues about this?
> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> > @ ioctl_ref @
> > identifier fops_id;
> > identifier ioctl_id;
> > @@
> > struct file_operations fops_id = {
> > ...
> > (
> > .unlocked_ioctl
> > |
> > .compat_ioctl
> > )
> > = ioctl_id,
> > ...
> > };
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci
(Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
