Re: [cocci] Checking evaluation of another SmPL script

>> I find some generated diff hunks inappropriate for the mentioned source code
>> search pattern.
>> How can such questionable data be avoided here?
> 
> Due to the goto, they all look fine to me.  What did you intend?

Does the statement “goto lookup_again;” represent a jump backwards?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1-rc4/source/fs/nfs/pnfs.c#L2170

Would it form a loop?


> If you consider that some output is unsuitable, it would help a lot if you
> would indicate which output you are concerned about,

I am trying again to clarify development challenges together with variations
of the semantic patch language.


>                                                      and not just dump
> the whole thing and hopw taht the reader will figure it out in the same
> way you did.

Wentao Liang pointed only a single source place out for an improvement
according to the affected function implementation.
Thus I hope that the other diff hunks can trigger more desirable collateral evolution.

Can the program parameter “--no-loops” have a bigger effect?
https://gitlab.inria.fr/coccinelle/coccinelle/-/blob/03a1af0a3316ddfc2b54d827b8b9627a841c85c9/docs/manual/spatch_options.tex#L373-375

Regards,
Markus