> ? There is concern that ? Does this wording need a small adjustment? > The changes were obtained by applying the following Coccinelle script. I would find it nicer if previous patch review comments will trigger further useful effects here. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10637703/#22265203 https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/03b524f3-5f3a-baa0-2254-9c588103d2d6 at users.sourceforge.net/ https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org/msg140009.html If you have got difficulties with the usage of advanced regular expressions for SmPL constraints, I suggest to use desired function names in SmPL lists or disjunctions instead because of different run time characteristics for such a source code transformation approach. > // Note: I split the 'identifier fn' line, so if you are manually > // running it, please unsplit it so it runs for you. Please delete this questionable comment. * The semantic patch language should handle the mentioned code formatting. * You can use multi-line regular expressions (if it would be desired). > @pte_alloc_func_def depends on patch exists@ > identifier E2; > identifier fn =~ How do you think about to avoid the repetition of a SmPL key word at such places? Regards, Markus
