On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > +@vz1 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@ > > +type T; > > +T *d; > > +statement S; > > +@@ > > + > > + d = > > +- vmalloc > > ++ vzalloc > > + (...); > > + if (!d) S > > +- memset(d, 0, sizeof(T)); > > + > > +@vz2 depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@ > > +expression d; > > +statement S; > > +@@ > > + > > + d = > > +- vmalloc > > ++ vzalloc > > + (...); > > + if (!d) S > > +- memset(d, 0, sizeof(*d)); > > I suggest to take another look at a few implementation details. > > 1. Would it make sense to merge such SmPL rules into one > so that code duplication could be reduced a bit > in such a script? I think it would suffer in readability. Perhaps in performance as well. julia > > 2. How do you think about to extend the shown check list > with the function "kvm_kvzalloc"? > > 3. Do you want to maintain a growing (?) function name list manually? > > Regards, > Markus >
