On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Amitoj Kaur Chawla wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, SF Markus Elfring > <[email protected]> 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? > > > > 2. How do you think about to extend the shown check list > > with the function "kvm_kvzalloc"? > > > > Hi Markus, > > kvm_kvzalloc function doesn't fit the same pattern as the other > functions in this semantic patch, and is kvm specific, so the > semantic patch looks fine as is. Acked-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]> > > Thanks, > Amitoj > > > 3. Do you want to maintain a growing (?) function name list manually? > > > > Regards, > > Markus >
