> In a function, for a local variable returned by calling > of_find_device_by_node(), I suggest to reconsider this information once more. 1. Will an other wording be more appropriate for the storage of a function return value? 2. Can the restriction “local” be omitted? 3. Will any macros be involved eventually? > c, for the rest of the situation, the current function should release the > reference by calling put_device, Can it happen that on other function will perform the desired reference release? > this code search will report the > corresponding error message. Rewording? A code search can report an error with a specific confidence. > v5->v4: Such version information would be sufficient also without arrows, wouldn't it? > - add a SPDX identifierfix Would you like to fix a typo at the end? > +@script:python depends on report@ > +p1 << search.p1; > +p2 << search.p2; > +@@ > + > +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], "ERROR: missing put_device; " > + + "call of_find_device_by_node on line " > + + p1[0].line > + + ", but without a corresponding object release " > + + "within this function.") I find your interpretation of my reminder for the preferred avoidance of split string literals interesting somehow. Can the following source code variant be more appropriate? +coccilib.report.print_report(p2[0], + "WARNING: missing put_device - of_find_device_by_node() call on line " + + p1[0].line + + ", but without a corresponding object release within this function.") Will any more advanced error diagnostics be eventually developed? Regards, Markus
