> Changes in v2(as suggested by Markus):
Thanks you picked a few suggestions up.
I would appreciate further constructive clarifications.
…
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/locks/balancedlock.cocci
…
> +//# False positives may be generated due to locks released within a nested
> +//# function call or a goto block.
> +///
> +// Confidence: Moderate
How good does such information fit together?
> +// Copyright: (C) 2020 Julia Lawall INRIA/LIP6
> +// Copyright: (C) 2020 Sumera Priyadarsini
Does this information indicate that the shown script for the semantic patch
language
was a development result from another collaboration?
…
>+ (
> +mutex_lock@p(E);
> +|
> +read_lock@p(E);
> +|
…
Why did you not reorder the elements of such a SmPL disjunctions according to
an usage incidence (which can be determined by another SmPL script like
“report_lock_calls.cocci”)?
…
> +@balanced2 depends on context || org || report@
> +identifier lock, unlock = {mutex_unlock,
…
Are there any chances to avoid the repetition of the function name list
for this SmPL constraint?
…
> +msg = "This code segment might have an unbalanced lock."
> +coccilib.org.print_todo(j0[0], msg)
Please pass the string literal directly.
+coccilib.org.print_todo(j0[0], "This code segment might have an unbalanced
lock.")
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
