On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 04:11:45PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > From: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > > Use the error handling code at the end of the function, rather than > returning directly. > > The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows: > (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > // <smpl> > @r@ > identifier x; > @@ > > kfree(x) > > @@ > identifier r.x; > expression E1!=0,E2,E3,E4; > statement S; > @@ > > ( > if (<+...x...+>) S > | > if (...) { ... when != kfree(x) > when != if (...) { ... kfree(x); ... } > when != x = E3 > * return E1; > } > ... when != x = E2 > if (...) { ... when != x = E4 > kfree(x); ... return ...; } > ) > // </smpl> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > Applied, thanks. > I wonder if the error handling code at the end of the function should be > calling clk_put as well? In that case, having a separate label for this > case would be useful. Otherwise, one of error_request_irq and error_get_clk > can be deleted > The MSM implementation for it is simply a nop, so it's not going to really matter one way or the other. In terms of general consistency it might be worth implementing. I expect that there are probably quite a few drivers that don't balance out their clk_get()'s with clk_put()'s however, perhaps this is another semantic patch candidate? At the very least it would be interesting to see the statistics. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
