On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > +// Confidence: High
>
> Would you like to add any suggestion for a possible patch message?
>
>
> …
> > +virtual report
> > +virtual org
> > +virtual context
> > +virtual patch
>
> +virtual report, org, context, patch
>
> Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
This doens't matter.
>
>
> …
> > +ssize_t show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > +{
> > + <...
> > +* return snprintf@p(...);
> > + ...>
> > +}
>
> I suggest to reconsider the selection of the SmPL nest construct.
> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/e06b9156dfa02a28cf3cbf0913a10513f3d163ab/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L783
>
> Can the construct “<+... … ...+>” become relevant here?
<... ...> is fine if the only thing that will be used afterwards is what
is inside the <... ...>
julia
>
>
> Would you like to consider any further software design consequences
> around the safe application of the asterisk functionality in rules
> for the semantic patch language?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
