Re: [cocci] [PATCH] HID: fix semantic patch and improve its performance

quoted

…

quoted

+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/hid/ff_race.cocci

…

quoted

-@r@
+@r exists@
 identifier probe_fn;
-expression hdev, flags;
+identifier hdev;

May the following SmPL code variant be applied?

 identifier hdev, probe_fn;

Yes, but it doesn't matter.

Can it occasionally matter to avoid the duplication of such an SmPL key word?

Can SmPL variable declarations become a bit shorter?

quoted

quoted

+expression flags;
 position p1, p2;
 @@

 probe_fn(struct hid_device *hdev, ...) {
-  <...
+  ... when any
   hid_hw_start@p1(hdev, flags)
   ...
-  \(input_ff_create\|input_ff_create_memless\)@p2(...)
-  ...>
+  \(input_ff_create@p2\|input_ff_create_memless@p2\)(...)

How do you think about to use the following SmPL code variation?

(input_ff_create@p2
|input_ff_create_memless@p2
)(...)

I find this completely unreadable.

I find this view surprising.

There are special views involved for the layout of such SmPL disjunctions.

Regards,
Markus