>> I just try again to clarify if the specification of a single function call >> exclusion can (and should) be sufficient also at this place. > > It's not sufficient. > > I explained why it's not sufficient.
Thanks for another bit of information. > If you had made your change and tested it, it's at least highly probable > that you would understand why it is not sufficient as well. > > You first reflex when you have a question should be to try what you are > wondering about, not to head for the mailing list. I got the impression that a few of our previous clarification attempts pointed design possibilities out into other directions. Examples: * Coccinelle: semantic patch for missing of_node_put Response by Wen Yang 17 May 2019 14:32:57 +0800 (CST) https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]/ https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]/ https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-May/005809.html https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/9/99 * [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() Discussion contribution by Markus Elfring https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]/ https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005578.html https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/15/412 > Please stop spreading misinformation. I find the provided software documentation still incomplete. Thus I hope also that the situation can be improved by additional communication. See also: [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device() Response by Julia Lawall 16 Feb 2019 10:36:45 +0100 (CET) alpine.DEB.2.21.1902161036120.3212@hadrien https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]/ https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005594.html https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/16/38 How will the software development attention evolve further around the safe handling of code exclusion specifications together with the semantic patch language? Regards, Markus
