>> @@ -3015,11 +2859,6 @@ static int init_slave(struct gbe_priv *g
>> }
>>
>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "link-interface",
>> ->link_interface)) {
>> - dev_warn(gbe_dev->dev,
>> -"missing link-interface value
> The asterisk functionality has no goal of making code that compiles.
How do you think about to add this information to the manual for
the semantic patch language?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @@ -3015,11 +2859,6 @@ static int init_slave(struct gbe_priv *g
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "link-interface",
> >> ->link_interface)) {
> >> - dev_warn(gbe_dev->dev,
>>> If you want to be sure that you aren't in a loop,
>>
>> I do not want to filter on this implementation detail for the shown analysis
>> approach.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "I do not want to".
I suggest to improve this clarification by additional case distinctions.
> You mean that
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have tried another small SmPL script out.
>
>
> @display@
> identifier work;
> statement s1, s2;
> type T;
> @@
> T work(...)
> {
> ... when any
> *{
> ... when any
> * s1
> * s2
> *}
> ... when any
> }
>
>
> I have observed
Hello,
I have tried another small SmPL script out.
@display@
identifier work;
statement s1, s2;
type T;
@@
T work(...)
{
... when any
*{
... when any
* s1
* s2
*}
... when any
}
I have observed then that the following diff hunk was generated.
> If you want to be sure that you aren't in a loop,
I do not want to filter on this implementation detail for the shown analysis
approach.
> you have to ue position variables to be sure that the two matched fragments
> are different.
I find this information questionable.
* How should source
