>>> +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x)
…
>>> +if (id == NULL || ...) { ... return ...; }
>>> +... when != put_device(&id->dev)
>> …
>>> + when != if (id) { ... put_device(&id->dev) ... }
>> …
>>
>> I would interpret this SmPL code in the way that the if statement
>> for the pointer check is “optional” in this line.
>> Is it an extra and redundant SmPL specification when the reference
>> release function could eventually be found just anywhere within
>> an implementation?
>
> The proposed when code is correct.
I agree that this SmPL code can work in the way it was designed.
> It is not redundant, because it checks for a particular control-flow pattern.
It took another moment until I dared to express a different software
development opinion also on this implementation detail.
Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
of the function “put_device” can occur within a branch of an if statement?
Regards,
Markus
