Re: [v5] Coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()

[Markus Elfring]

>> Does the first SmPL when specification include the case that a call
>> of the function âput_deviceâ can occur within a branch of an if statement?
>
> It does include that,

Thanks for this acknowledgement.

So it seems that you find my interpretation of this bit of SmPL code appropriate.


> but there is another execution path where the put device is not present.

It is tried to find such cases.


> But given the test in the if in the when code,
> on that execution path id is NULL, an so there is no need to put it.

I would like to point out that the function âput_deviceâ belongs also to
the category of functions which tolerate the passing of null pointers.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0-rc6/source/drivers/base/core.c#L2053
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/base/core.c?id=cb5b020a8d38f77209d0472a0fea755299a8ec78#n2053

Have we got still different software development opinions about the need
for an extra pointer check in the âsecondâ SmPL when specification?

Regards,
Markus