I dare to repeat previous patch review aspects once more. https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/a316f076-1686-25d8-18fe-1bbc0cf9a701@xxxxxx/ … > +virtual context > +virtual patch > +virtual org > +virtual report +virtual context, patch, org, report Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct? … > +if (...) > + \(memset@ok\|memzero_explicit@ok\)(...); Would you like to tolerate any extra source code around such a function call in an if branch? … > +( > +* memset@m((T)E, 0, ...); > +| > +* memzero_explicit@m((T)E, ...); > +) … I suggest to move a semicolon. +( +*memset@m((T)E, 0, ...) +| +*memzero_explicit@m((T)E, ...) +); … > +- \(kfree\|vfree\|kvfree\)(E); > ++ kvfree_sensitive(E, size); … Would you like to increase the precision a bit for the change specification? +-\(kfree\|vfree\|kvfree\) ++kvfree_sensitive + (E ++ , size + ); … > +( > +- kfree(E); > ++ kzfree(E); > +| > +- \(vfree\|kvfree\)(E); > ++ kvfree_sensitive(E, size); > +) … +( +-kfree ++kzfree + (E) +| +-\(vfree\|kvfree\) ++kvfree_sensitive + (E ++ , size + ) +); … > +// TODO: uncomment when kfree_sensitive will be merged. > +// Only this case is commented out because developers > +// may not like patches like this since kzfree uses memset > +// internally (not memzero_explicit). Will this information trigger any further clarification? … > +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], > + "WARNING: opportunity for kzfree/kvfree_sensitive") I propose to align the second function parameter. +coccilib.org.print_todo(p[0], + "WARNING: opportunity for kzfree/kvfree_sensitive") Regards, Markus
