On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Now I wonder why the first assignment is not marked together with the
> > function call
> > for further considerations by my source code analysis approach so far.
>
> I should have adjusted one of the used regular expressions a bit more like
> the following.
>
>
> @find_too_late_checking@
> expression ex1, ex2;
> identifier action1 =~ "^(?x)
> (?:
> kzalloc
> | kmalloc_array
> )$",
> action2 =~ "^(?x)
> (?:
> kzalloc
> | kmalloc(?:_array)?
> )$",
> work;
> type return_type;
> @@
> return_type work(...)
> {
> ... when any
> *ex1 = action1(...);
> ex2 = action2(...);
> ... when any
> }
>
>
> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch.opt
> show_too_late_checking2.cocci ../Probe/clk-mstp-excerpt1.c
> init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib64/coccinelle/standard.h
> HANDLING: ../Probe/clk-mstp-excerpt1.c
> diff =
> --- ../Probe/clk-mstp-excerpt1.c
> +++ /tmp/cocci-output-20109-52f048-clk-mstp-excerpt1.c
> @@ -5,7 +5,6 @@ static void __init cpg_mstp_clocks_init(
> struct clk **clks;
> unsigned int i;
>
> - group = kzalloc(sizeof(*group), GFP_KERNEL);
> clks = kmalloc(MSTP_MAX_CLOCKS * sizeof(*clks), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (group == NULL || clks == NULL) {
> kfree(group);
>
>
> I imagine that there are further software improvements to consider around
> such use cases.
Not sure what you are asking about here. Note that it is unlikely that
anyone would accept a patch on the above code. Group is tested before it
is used.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
