On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> 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"? > … > > kvm_kvzalloc function doesn't fit the same pattern as the other > > functions in this semantic patch, and is kvm specific, > > Has this one got a similar function property? Do you have any example where XXX followed by memset is converted to this function? > > Do you prefer to exclude such functions which belong to subsystems > so far generally? Yes, because it would introduce unwanted dependencies. > > > so the semantic patch looks fine as is. > > How do you think about to express the shown source code repetition > as an aspect by an other script format? It is fine as it is. julia
