Hello,
I have tried further script variants out for the semantic patch language
(according to the software combination “Coccinelle 1.0.8-00087-g7cf2c23e”).
Source code example:
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
// deleted part
static int sca3000_read_data(struct sca3000_state *st,
u8 reg_address_high,
u8 *rx,
int len)
{
int ret;
struct spi_transfer xfer[2] = {
{
.len = 1,
.tx_buf = st->tx,
}, {
.len = len,
.rx_buf = rx,
}
};
// deleted part
ret = spi_sync_transfer(st->us, xfer, ARRAY_SIZE(xfer));
if (ret) {
dev_err(get_device(&st->us->dev), "problem reading register");
return ret;
}
return 0;
}
// deleted part
See also:
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1236743/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/[email protected]/
The following search approach points a questionable source code place out
as expected.
@display@
@@
(dev_err
|dev_info
) (
* get_device(...),
...
)
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch
show_get_device_as_message_parameter2.cocci ../Probe/sca3000-excerpt-20200505.c
…
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ static int sca3000_read_data(struct sca3
// deleted part
ret = spi_sync_transfer(st->us, xfer, ARRAY_SIZE(xfer));
if (ret) {
- dev_err(get_device(&st->us->dev), "problem reading register");
return ret;
}
But I do not get the same output for the following SmPL script.
@display@
@@
(dev_err
|dev_info
) (
* <+... get_device(...) ...+>
)
Is such a test result worth for further software development considerations?
Does the application of the SmPL nest construct need any more clarification?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/114
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
