On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > … > > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/free/ifnullfree.cocci > > @@ -20,8 +20,14 @@ expression E; > > - if (E != NULL) > > ( > > kfree(E); > > +| > > + kvfree(E); > > | > > kfree_sensitive(E); > > +| > > + kvfree_sensitive(E, ...); > > +| > > + vfree(E); > > | > > debugfs_remove(E); > > | > > Would you ever get into the development mood to move the source code search > specification “(E);” out of the SmPL disjunction (as it happened for the rule “r”)? > > > > @@ -42,9 +48,10 @@ position p; > > @@ > > > > * if (E != NULL) > > -* \(kfree@p\|kfree_sensitive@p\|debugfs_remove@p\|debugfs_remove_recursive@p\| > > +* \(kfree@p\|kvfree@p\|kfree_sensitive@p\|kvfree_sensitive@p\|vfree@p\| > > +* debugfs_remove@p\|debugfs_remove_recursive@p\| > > * usb_free_urb@p\|kmem_cache_destroy@p\|mempool_destroy@p\| > > -* dma_pool_destroy@p\)(E); > > +* dma_pool_destroy@p\)(E, ...); > … > > How do you think about to attach the position variable to the opening parenthesis > instead of each function name? > > +* dma_pool_destroy\)(@p E, ...); While it probably impacts few people, this is a really bad idea for org mode, because org mode colors the thing that the position variable is attached to. Having the ( colored would not be very visible. But even for report mode, this is probably not a good idea for the rare case where the function name and the argument list are on different lines. julia > > > Would the number of function call parameters influence such SmPL code any more? > > Regards, > Markus >
