… > +// Confidence: High Some contributors presented discerning comments for this change approach. Thus I became also curious how much they can eventually be taken better into account by the means of the semantic patch language (Coccinelle software).
… +@p1 depends on patch@ +expression E; +@@ +( > +- E != NULL && !IS_ERR(E) > ++ !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(E) > +| > +- E == NULL || IS_ERR(E) > ++ IS_ERR_OR_NULL(E) > +| > +- !IS_ERR(E) && E != NULL > ++ !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(E) > +| > +- IS_ERR(E) || E == NULL > ++ IS_ERR_OR_NULL(E) > +) Several detected expressions should refer to return values from function calls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_statement * Do any development challenges hinder still the determination of corresponding failure predicates? * How will interests evolve to improve data processing any further for such use cases? Regards, Markus
