> > +identifier fname =~ ".*free.*"; > > +identifier fname2 =~ ".*destroy.*"; > > +identifier fname3 =~ ".*del.*"; > > +identifier fname4 =~ ".*queue_work.*"; > > +identifier fname5 =~ ".*schedule_work.*"; > > +identifier fname6 =~ ".*call_rcu.*"; > > Personally, I find the above regular expressions much easier to understand > than the merged version that Markus proposed.
I really don't have a strong opinion on the presentation side. One is more compact, the above one perhaps a bit clearer for unexperienced reader (like myself). Sometimes when I try to read patterns from cocci folder, it takes me really a while to understand what is happening, which is not the case with simple expression above. I have just considered myself to be too new into this and therefore sticked to simple expressions to make sure I am minimizing functional mistakes. But the performance issue is > only on whether to use regular expressions or not. If you use regular > expressions, Coccinelle will not do some optimizations. But once you > decide to use regular expressions, the performance hit is already taken - > for a good cause here, to my understanding. Ok, so then performance is not even a factor. Thank you for the explanation! So just put whatever you find > convenient, in terms of readability, precision, etc. It seems that del is > not very precise, because it is a substring of multiple words with > different meanings. Maybe it should be improved, or maybe one can just > live with the false positives (eg delay), if they actually are false > positives. This is the problem that some of them might be and some not. I can call the queuing works explicitly: identifier fname4 =~ ".*queue_work.*"; identifier fname5 =~ ".*queue_delayed_work.*"; Then there is no need to match "delay", but I still like to match both "delete" and "del". Best Regards, Elena. > > julia
