On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > when != e = id achieves this behavior. > > > > I can not agree to this view completely because of the meaning that is connected > > with these variable identifiers. > > > > Both metavariables share the kind “expression”. So I can imagine > > that there is an intersection for the source code match possibility. > > But one was intentionally restricted to the kind “local idexpression” so far. > > > > Which data element should not get reassigned here (before a corresponding > > null pointer check)? > > > > Thank you for your comments. > We did some experiments: > +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > +... when != e = id > ... > Or: > ... > + ... when != id = e > > The number of issuses found by these two methods is the same. > When != e = id achieves this behavior. They are the same because neither issue arises. I would have a hard time saying which one is more reasonable to test, since both are extremely unlikely. julia > > In addition, we feel that we should probably accept this patch first, use it to find more memory leaks, and solve the actual problems in the kernel code. > As for the patch itself, we can continue to pursue perfect in the process of using it to solve practical problems. > > Regards, > Wen
