Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

2019-02-16 Thread Markus Elfring
>>> We don't need perfection. >> >> I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose >> more software development efforts in such a direction. > > Yes, this is noticable. I am curious then if remaining change suggestions will be picked up by more software developers and reviewers.

Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

2019-02-16 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hi, On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:57:54AM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > We don't need perfection. > > I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose > more software development efforts in such a direction. Yes, this is noticable. It is your choice, however, other people may

Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

2019-02-16 Thread Markus Elfring
> We don't need perfection. I guess that you noticed in the meantime that I dare to propose more software development efforts in such a direction. > We need more to eliminate the memory leaks. Will this view evolve into further helpful and constructive clarifications? Regards, Markus

Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

2019-02-16 Thread Julia Lawall
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, wen.yan...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > Thanks, We will change it to something like this: > > > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node() > > > > How do you think about another wording approach? > > > > 1. Precondition: > > It will be checked where

Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

2019-02-16 Thread Julia Lawall
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Thanks, We will change it to something like this: > > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node() > > How do you think about another wording approach? > > 1. Precondition: >It will be checked where the return value

Re: [Cocci] [v5] coccinelle: semantic code search for missingput_device()

2019-02-16 Thread Markus Elfring
> Thanks, We will change it to something like this: > In a function, for a local variable obtained by of_find_device_by_node() How do you think about another wording approach? 1. Precondition: It will be checked where the return value is stored from a call of the function