Re: [Cocci] OpenLDAP debug statements

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Ondřej Kuzník wrote: > Hi again, > having achieved some consensus to go ahead with this in the project and > some time to spare again, I have started on refining the patch to get as large > part of the OpenLDAP source code converted as possible. > > There seem to be a few

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 0/5] bq27xxx_battery data memory update

Hi, On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:07:12PM -0700, Liam Breck wrote: > I don't see a Julia in CC list... <_< let's try that again. > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Sebastian Reichel > wrote: > > [adding Julia to Cc for Coccinelle question] > > > > Hi, > > > > On

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3 0/5] bq27xxx_battery data memory update

Coccinelle folks, On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:07:12PM -0700, Liam Breck wrote: >> I don't see a Julia in CC list... > > <_< let's try that again. > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Sebastian

Re: [Cocci] OpenLDAP debug statements

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Ondřej Kuzník wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:17:53PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Ondřej Kuzník wrote: > >> Hi again, > >> having achieved some consensus to go ahead with this in the project and > >> some time to spare again, I have started on

Re: [Cocci] OpenLDAP debug statements

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:17:53PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Ondřej Kuzník wrote: >> Hi again, >> having achieved some consensus to go ahead with this in the project and >> some time to spare again, I have started on refining the patch to get as >> large >> part of the

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] provide rule for finding refcounters

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > > Hi, I am very sorry for the delayed reply. Finally unrigging my inbox :( > > > > > A few more small issues: > > > > > > When you deleted the disjunction, you kept the surrounding parentheses. > > > you can drop them (lines 83 and 85). > > > >

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] provide rule for finding refcounters

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > Hi, I am very sorry for the delayed reply. Finally unrigging my inbox :( > > > A few more small issues: > > > > When you deleted the disjunction, you kept the surrounding parentheses. > > you can drop them (lines 83 and 85). > > > > I guess that

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH v3] provide rule for finding refcounters

Hi, I am very sorry for the delayed reply. Finally unrigging my inbox :( > A few more small issues: > > When you deleted the disjunction, you kept the surrounding parentheses. > you can drop them (lines 83 and 85). > > I guess that the "del" regular expression is supposed to be matching >

Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] Coccinelle: add atomic_as_refcounter script

> > +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

[Cocci] OpenLDAP debug statements

Hi again, having achieved some consensus to go ahead with this in the project and some time to spare again, I have started on refining the patch to get as large part of the OpenLDAP source code converted as possible. There seem to be a few hundred occurrences that I can't seem to get coccinelle

Re: [Cocci] OpenLDAP debug statements

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Ondřej Kuzník wrote: > Hi again, > having achieved some consensus to go ahead with this in the project and > some time to spare again, I have started on refining the patch to get as large > part of the OpenLDAP source code converted as possible. > > There seem to be a few