> Subject: Re: [4/5] Coccinelle: put_device: Extend when constraints for
> twoSmPL ellipses
> >> Can you agree to any information which I presented in the commit message?
>
> Do you find this description inappropriate?
>
>
> >>> 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 =
>
> The clarification of this change reluctance might become more interesting.
> I got convinced that there is a need for further software updates.
>
>
> >> * Can it become required to identify involved source code placeholders
> >> by extra metavariables?
> >
> > I don't understand the question.
>
> Wen Yang was planning a corresponding modification since 2019-02-19.
> https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/[email protected]/
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005620.html
>
Hi Markus,
I did another experiment at that time and found that this modification will
reduce the false positive rate, but it may also reduce the recall rate.
Could we use it to find out as many bugs as possible in the current kernel
and then modify it?
https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005626.html
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Wen
>
> I got into the development mood to contribute another concrete update
> suggestion
> for an open issue in affected scripts for the semantic patch language.
> Do you recognise the need for the extension of exclusion specifications here?
>
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
