On Sat, 9 Aug 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > +@r depends on context || report || org @ > > +expression E; > > +position p; > > +@@ > > + > > +* if (E) > > +* \(kfree@p\|debugfs_remove@p\|debugfs_remove_recursive@p\|usb_free_urb\)(E); > > How do you think about to add the construct "@p" also behind the function name > "usb_free_urb"? Yes, that would be needed, thanks. Also, it was recently suggested to add of_node_put to the list of things that are checked for. > Is my previous update suggestion for such an issue worth for another look, too? I still don't think this should be done for any random function that performs a null test on its argument. The corrections involved here are not as trivial as they would seem. Often it is not the case that the null test at the call site should be just deleted, instead the code should be reorganized. Making a rule that treats 5000 functions that are automatically selected will just encourage people to do sloppy things. (Personally, I don't like the whole null test removal idea. It mixes the notion of something that is necessary and has failed and something that is optional. In the case of something that is necessary and has failed, the null value is usually statically apparent, and the code can be reorganized so that a null value doesn't go where it is not wanted. In the case of something that is simply optional, the presence of the null test gives the reader of the code some information. Removing this information in rarely executed code seems unfortunate.) julia > > Regards, > Markus > -- > 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 > -- 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
