On 01/10/2013 09:53 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> +@r1@
>> +identifier fn;
>> +identifier xfers;
>> +@@
>> +fn(...)
>> +{
>> + ...
>> +(
>> + struct spi_transfer xfers[...];
>> +|
>> + struct spi_transfer xfers[];
>> +)
>> + ...
>> +}
>
> Can it happen that there would be more than one spi_transfer or spi_message
> variable per function? This semantic patch will only treat the case where
> there is only one, because the ... before an after the variable declaration
> won't match another declaration of the same form.
>
> julia
I guess it could happen, but I would consider it to be very rare. There are
a few examples of multiple transfers in the kernel. But most of them look like
struct spi_message msg;
struct spi_transfer xfer_foo;
struct spi_transfer xfer_bar;
...
spi_message_add_tail(&xfer_foo, &msg);
spi_message_add_tail(&xfer_bar, &msg);
So the transformation can't be applied here anyway.
Do you have an idea how to change the rule to work with multiple
transfers/messages per function? If it would make the cocci file more
complex I wouldn't bother to take care of it, since it basically has no
practical use.
- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
