… 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@users.sourceforge.net/ (local)
https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@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