Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: Check for missing NULL terminators in of_device_id tables

2014-05-27 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 05/24/14 00:57, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> +... struct of_device_id arr[] = { >> +..., >> +{ >> +..., >> +.var = E, >> +... >> +} >> +}; > You shouldn't need any of the ...s in these rules. > Hm.. Removing all the ...s in these ru

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: Check for missing NULL terminators in of_device_id tables

2014-05-27 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 05/25/14 07:13, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Failure to terminate an of_device_id table can lead to confusing >> failures depending on where the compiler places the array. Add a >> check to make sure these tables are terminated. Thanks to Mitchel

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: Check for missing NULL terminators in of_device_id tables

2014-05-25 Thread Rob Herring
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Failure to terminate an of_device_id table can lead to confusing > failures depending on where the compiler places the array. Add a > check to make sure these tables are terminated. Thanks to Mitchel > Humpherys for coming up with the initial

Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: Check for missing NULL terminators in of_device_id tables

2014-05-24 Thread Julia Lawall
On Fri, 23 May 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Failure to terminate an of_device_id table can lead to confusing > failures depending on where the compiler places the array. Add a > check to make sure these tables are terminated. Thanks to Mitchel > Humpherys for coming up with the initial pattern. >

[PATCH] coccinelle: Check for missing NULL terminators in of_device_id tables

2014-05-23 Thread Stephen Boyd
Failure to terminate an of_device_id table can lead to confusing failures depending on where the compiler places the array. Add a check to make sure these tables are terminated. Thanks to Mitchel Humpherys for coming up with the initial pattern. Cc: Mitchel Humpherys Cc: Julia Lawall Cc: Gilles